Diversity in Medicine

A disproportionate and unique number of obstacles exist in reproductive health care for patients based on race, ethnicity, geography, socioeconomic, LGBTQ+, and disability status. These barriers represent inequality in access to reproductive medical services.

These challenges are also seen in other reproductive disorders such as polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), fibroids, and endometriosis. It is estimated that < 25% of individuals with infertility in the United States access the resources required to have their treatment needs met (Fertil Steril. 2015 Nov;104(5):1104-10. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.07.113)

Fertility CARE

In 2020, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) created a task force on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) chaired by Board Member Michael A. Thomas, MD. Two years later, the ASRM elevated this task force to a committee that is now chaired by Gloria Richard-Davis, MD. As health care systems and societies increasingly recognize these obstacles to care, I invited Dr. Thomas, the current president of the ASRM, to address this vital concern. Dr. Thomas is professor and chair, department of obstetrics and gynecology, at the University of Cincinnati.
 

While not limited to reproductive health care, how prevalent is the lack of DEI and what factors contribute to this problem?

When we established the initial ASRM DEI task force, we wanted to look at DEI issues within our profession and as an access-to-care initiative. We found that ASRM and ABOG (American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology) were not asking questions about the makeup of our REI (Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility) providers, nursing staff, and lab personnel. We had some older data from 2018 about the REI fellowships. Since that time, there appears to be an upward trend of people of color in REI fellowships.

University of Cincinnati

We still need more data about academic, hybrid, and private REI practices when it comes to all employees. The goal would be to increase the number of people of color in all aspects of our field.

As far as access to care, we know that people of color do not have the ability to undergo ART (assisted reproductive technology) procedures at the same rate. This could be due to affordability, slower and/or later referral patterns, and personal stigma issues. Even in mandated states, people of color are seen by IVF providers in lower numbers. There is a need for a better understanding of the access-to-care issues, especially when affordability is not a problem, and the barriers to our LGBTQ+ patients.
 

Can you provide information about actions by the ASRM DEI task force and any plans for the future?

The DEI task force is now an ASRM committee. This committee is chaired by Dr. Gloria Richard-Davis and continues to work on increasing people of color in the REI workforce and understanding and decreasing access to care issues faced by people of color and members of the LGBTQ+ community.

What can physicians do at the local, state, and national level to support DEI?

All REI and ob.gyn. physicians can work with insurance companies to work on the current barriers that stand in the way of patients who want to have a family. For example, physicians can work with insurance companies to remove their definition of infertility as exposure to sperm for 1 year before fertility coverage can take effect. Also, mandated insurance coverage in all 50 states would allow even smaller companies to require this benefit to patients.

Many people of color work in smaller companies that, unfortunately, are not required to offer IVF coverage in states where mandated insurance coverage is available. As potential encouraging news, ASRM, RESOLVE (The National Infertility Association) and other patient advocacy groups are working with each state to help enact fertility mandates.
 

Which group, if any, has been most negatively affected by a lack of DEI?

People of color, LGBTQ+ communities, people with disabilities, single individuals, and those with income challenges are the most likely to be affected by adverse DEI policies.

While it is long overdue, why do you believe DEI has become such a touchstone and pervasive movement at this time?

This is the million-dollar question. After the George Floyd death, there was a global re-examination of how people of color were treated in every aspect of society. ASRM was the first to start this DEI initiative in women’s health.

ASRM and its patient advocacy partners are working with every nonmandated state toward the goal of passing infertility legislation to dramatically reduce the financial burden on all patients. We are starting to see more states either coming on board with mandates or at least discussing the possibilities. ASRM and RESOLVE have seen some recent positive outcomes with improved insurance for military families and government workers.
 

We can all agree that access to infertility treatment, particularly IVF, is not equivalent among different racial/ethnic populations. Part of the ASRM DEI task force is to evaluate research on IVF outcomes and race/ethnicity. Can you share why pregnancy outcomes would be included to potentially improve DEI?

More research needs to be done on pregnancy outcomes in women of color. We know that women of color have a decreased pregnancy rate in ART cycles even when controlling for age and other factors. We also know that birth outcomes are worse in these women. More understanding of this problem for women of color, especially African American women needs to be done.

Estimates are that more than one in eight LGBTQ+ patients live in states where physicians can refuse to treat them. Consequently, how can we improve DEI in these regions?

As someone with a number of family members in the LGBTQ+ community, this is a problem that is close to my heart. There appear to be many barriers that are being built to disenfranchise our LGBTQ+ community members. It is up to ASRM and patient advocacy groups to work with legislators to pass more inclusive laws and for insurance companies to update their definitions of infertility to be more inclusive for all.

Any final comments?

Everyone should have the right to become a parent whether they want to now or in the future!

Dr. Trolice is director of The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

A disproportionate and unique number of obstacles exist in reproductive health care for patients based on race, ethnicity, geography, socioeconomic, LGBTQ+, and disability status. These barriers represent inequality in access to reproductive medical services.

These challenges are also seen in other reproductive disorders such as polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), fibroids, and endometriosis. It is estimated that < 25% of individuals with infertility in the United States access the resources required to have their treatment needs met (Fertil Steril. 2015 Nov;104(5):1104-10. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.07.113)

Fertility CARE

In 2020, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) created a task force on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) chaired by Board Member Michael A. Thomas, MD. Two years later, the ASRM elevated this task force to a committee that is now chaired by Gloria Richard-Davis, MD. As health care systems and societies increasingly recognize these obstacles to care, I invited Dr. Thomas, the current president of the ASRM, to address this vital concern. Dr. Thomas is professor and chair, department of obstetrics and gynecology, at the University of Cincinnati.
 

While not limited to reproductive health care, how prevalent is the lack of DEI and what factors contribute to this problem?

When we established the initial ASRM DEI task force, we wanted to look at DEI issues within our profession and as an access-to-care initiative. We found that ASRM and ABOG (American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology) were not asking questions about the makeup of our REI (Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility) providers, nursing staff, and lab personnel. We had some older data from 2018 about the REI fellowships. Since that time, there appears to be an upward trend of people of color in REI fellowships.

University of Cincinnati

We still need more data about academic, hybrid, and private REI practices when it comes to all employees. The goal would be to increase the number of people of color in all aspects of our field.

As far as access to care, we know that people of color do not have the ability to undergo ART (assisted reproductive technology) procedures at the same rate. This could be due to affordability, slower and/or later referral patterns, and personal stigma issues. Even in mandated states, people of color are seen by IVF providers in lower numbers. There is a need for a better understanding of the access-to-care issues, especially when affordability is not a problem, and the barriers to our LGBTQ+ patients.
 

Can you provide information about actions by the ASRM DEI task force and any plans for the future?

The DEI task force is now an ASRM committee. This committee is chaired by Dr. Gloria Richard-Davis and continues to work on increasing people of color in the REI workforce and understanding and decreasing access to care issues faced by people of color and members of the LGBTQ+ community.

What can physicians do at the local, state, and national level to support DEI?

All REI and ob.gyn. physicians can work with insurance companies to work on the current barriers that stand in the way of patients who want to have a family. For example, physicians can work with insurance companies to remove their definition of infertility as exposure to sperm for 1 year before fertility coverage can take effect. Also, mandated insurance coverage in all 50 states would allow even smaller companies to require this benefit to patients.

Many people of color work in smaller companies that, unfortunately, are not required to offer IVF coverage in states where mandated insurance coverage is available. As potential encouraging news, ASRM, RESOLVE (The National Infertility Association) and other patient advocacy groups are working with each state to help enact fertility mandates.
 

Which group, if any, has been most negatively affected by a lack of DEI?

People of color, LGBTQ+ communities, people with disabilities, single individuals, and those with income challenges are the most likely to be affected by adverse DEI policies.

While it is long overdue, why do you believe DEI has become such a touchstone and pervasive movement at this time?

This is the million-dollar question. After the George Floyd death, there was a global re-examination of how people of color were treated in every aspect of society. ASRM was the first to start this DEI initiative in women’s health.

ASRM and its patient advocacy partners are working with every nonmandated state toward the goal of passing infertility legislation to dramatically reduce the financial burden on all patients. We are starting to see more states either coming on board with mandates or at least discussing the possibilities. ASRM and RESOLVE have seen some recent positive outcomes with improved insurance for military families and government workers.
 

We can all agree that access to infertility treatment, particularly IVF, is not equivalent among different racial/ethnic populations. Part of the ASRM DEI task force is to evaluate research on IVF outcomes and race/ethnicity. Can you share why pregnancy outcomes would be included to potentially improve DEI?

More research needs to be done on pregnancy outcomes in women of color. We know that women of color have a decreased pregnancy rate in ART cycles even when controlling for age and other factors. We also know that birth outcomes are worse in these women. More understanding of this problem for women of color, especially African American women needs to be done.

Estimates are that more than one in eight LGBTQ+ patients live in states where physicians can refuse to treat them. Consequently, how can we improve DEI in these regions?

As someone with a number of family members in the LGBTQ+ community, this is a problem that is close to my heart. There appear to be many barriers that are being built to disenfranchise our LGBTQ+ community members. It is up to ASRM and patient advocacy groups to work with legislators to pass more inclusive laws and for insurance companies to update their definitions of infertility to be more inclusive for all.

Any final comments?

Everyone should have the right to become a parent whether they want to now or in the future!

Dr. Trolice is director of The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

A disproportionate and unique number of obstacles exist in reproductive health care for patients based on race, ethnicity, geography, socioeconomic, LGBTQ+, and disability status. These barriers represent inequality in access to reproductive medical services.

These challenges are also seen in other reproductive disorders such as polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), fibroids, and endometriosis. It is estimated that < 25% of individuals with infertility in the United States access the resources required to have their treatment needs met (Fertil Steril. 2015 Nov;104(5):1104-10. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.07.113)

Fertility CARE

In 2020, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) created a task force on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) chaired by Board Member Michael A. Thomas, MD. Two years later, the ASRM elevated this task force to a committee that is now chaired by Gloria Richard-Davis, MD. As health care systems and societies increasingly recognize these obstacles to care, I invited Dr. Thomas, the current president of the ASRM, to address this vital concern. Dr. Thomas is professor and chair, department of obstetrics and gynecology, at the University of Cincinnati.
 

While not limited to reproductive health care, how prevalent is the lack of DEI and what factors contribute to this problem?

When we established the initial ASRM DEI task force, we wanted to look at DEI issues within our profession and as an access-to-care initiative. We found that ASRM and ABOG (American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology) were not asking questions about the makeup of our REI (Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility) providers, nursing staff, and lab personnel. We had some older data from 2018 about the REI fellowships. Since that time, there appears to be an upward trend of people of color in REI fellowships.

University of Cincinnati

We still need more data about academic, hybrid, and private REI practices when it comes to all employees. The goal would be to increase the number of people of color in all aspects of our field.

As far as access to care, we know that people of color do not have the ability to undergo ART (assisted reproductive technology) procedures at the same rate. This could be due to affordability, slower and/or later referral patterns, and personal stigma issues. Even in mandated states, people of color are seen by IVF providers in lower numbers. There is a need for a better understanding of the access-to-care issues, especially when affordability is not a problem, and the barriers to our LGBTQ+ patients.
 

Can you provide information about actions by the ASRM DEI task force and any plans for the future?

The DEI task force is now an ASRM committee. This committee is chaired by Dr. Gloria Richard-Davis and continues to work on increasing people of color in the REI workforce and understanding and decreasing access to care issues faced by people of color and members of the LGBTQ+ community.

What can physicians do at the local, state, and national level to support DEI?

All REI and ob.gyn. physicians can work with insurance companies to work on the current barriers that stand in the way of patients who want to have a family. For example, physicians can work with insurance companies to remove their definition of infertility as exposure to sperm for 1 year before fertility coverage can take effect. Also, mandated insurance coverage in all 50 states would allow even smaller companies to require this benefit to patients.

Many people of color work in smaller companies that, unfortunately, are not required to offer IVF coverage in states where mandated insurance coverage is available. As potential encouraging news, ASRM, RESOLVE (The National Infertility Association) and other patient advocacy groups are working with each state to help enact fertility mandates.
 

Which group, if any, has been most negatively affected by a lack of DEI?

People of color, LGBTQ+ communities, people with disabilities, single individuals, and those with income challenges are the most likely to be affected by adverse DEI policies.

While it is long overdue, why do you believe DEI has become such a touchstone and pervasive movement at this time?

This is the million-dollar question. After the George Floyd death, there was a global re-examination of how people of color were treated in every aspect of society. ASRM was the first to start this DEI initiative in women’s health.

ASRM and its patient advocacy partners are working with every nonmandated state toward the goal of passing infertility legislation to dramatically reduce the financial burden on all patients. We are starting to see more states either coming on board with mandates or at least discussing the possibilities. ASRM and RESOLVE have seen some recent positive outcomes with improved insurance for military families and government workers.
 

We can all agree that access to infertility treatment, particularly IVF, is not equivalent among different racial/ethnic populations. Part of the ASRM DEI task force is to evaluate research on IVF outcomes and race/ethnicity. Can you share why pregnancy outcomes would be included to potentially improve DEI?

More research needs to be done on pregnancy outcomes in women of color. We know that women of color have a decreased pregnancy rate in ART cycles even when controlling for age and other factors. We also know that birth outcomes are worse in these women. More understanding of this problem for women of color, especially African American women needs to be done.

Estimates are that more than one in eight LGBTQ+ patients live in states where physicians can refuse to treat them. Consequently, how can we improve DEI in these regions?

As someone with a number of family members in the LGBTQ+ community, this is a problem that is close to my heart. There appear to be many barriers that are being built to disenfranchise our LGBTQ+ community members. It is up to ASRM and patient advocacy groups to work with legislators to pass more inclusive laws and for insurance companies to update their definitions of infertility to be more inclusive for all.

Any final comments?

Everyone should have the right to become a parent whether they want to now or in the future!

Dr. Trolice is director of The IVF Center in Winter Park, Fla., and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Central Florida, Orlando.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the use of affirmative action in admissions to colleges, universities, medical schools, and nursing schools. This has led to an enormous amount of worry and concern, particularly in medical school admissions in the world I’m in, where people start to say that diversity matters. Diversity is important.

I know many deans of medical schools immediately sent out messages of reassurance to their students, saying New York University or Stanford or Harvard or Minnesota or Case Western is still deeply concerned about diversity, and we’re going to do what we can to preserve attention to diversity.

I’ve served on admissions at a number of schools over the years for med school. I understand – and have been told – that diversity is important, and according to the Supreme Court, not explicitly by race. There are obviously many variables to take into account when trying to keep diversity at the forefront of admissions.

At the schools I’ve been at, including Columbia, NYU, University of Pittsburgh, University of Minnesota, and University of Pennsylvania, there are plenty of qualified students. Happily, we’ve always been engaged in some effort to try and whittle down the class to the size that we can manage and accept, and many qualified students don’t get admitted.

The first order of business for me is not to worry about how to maintain diversity. It’s to recognize that we need more doctors, nurses, and mental health care providers. I will, in a second, say a few words about diversity and where it fits into admissions, but I want to make the point clearly that what we should be doing is trying to expand the pool of students who are going to become doctors, nurses, mental health care providers, and social workers.

There are too many early retirements. We don’t have the person power we need to manage the health care challenges of an aging population. Let’s not get lost in arguing about what characteristics ought to get you into the finest medical schools. Let’s realize that we have to expand the number of schools we have.

We better be working pretty hard to expand our physician assistant programs, to make sure that we give full authority to qualified dentists and nurses who can help deliver some clinical care. We need more folks. That’s really where the battle ought to be: How do we get that done and how do we get it done quickly, not arguing about who’s in, who’s out, and why.

That said, diversity to me has never meant just race. I’m always interested in gender orientation, disability, and geographic input. Sometimes in decisions that you’re looking at, when I have students in front of me, they tell me they play a musical instrument or about the obstacles they had to overcome to get to medical school. Some of them will say they were involved in 4-H and did rodeo in high school or junior high school, which makes them a diverse potential student with characteristics that maybe some others don’t bring.

I’m not against diversity. I think having a rich set of experiences in any class – medicine, nursing, whatever it’s going to be – is beneficial to the students. They learn from each other. It is sometimes said that it’s also good for patients. I’m a little less excited about that, because I think our training goal should be to make every medical student and nursing student qualified to treat anybody.

I don’t think that, just because you’re Latinx or gay, that’s going to make a gay patient feel better. I think we should teach our students how to give care to everybody that they encounter. They shouldn’t have to match up characteristics to feel like they’re going to get quality care. That isn’t the right reason.

Diversity is important, I think, to teach our students, to broaden our research, and to make sure that bias doesn’t creep in to how we teach, learn, or behave. When you have a diverse set of providers, they can call that out and be on the alert for it, and that’s very important.

I also believe that we should think widely and broadly about diversity. Maybe race is out, but certainly other experiences related to income, background, struggle that got you to the point where you’re applying to medical school, motivation, the kinds of experiences you might have had caring for an elderly person, dealing with a disability or learning disability, and trying to overcome, let’s say, going to school in a poor area with not such a wonderful school, really help in terms of forming professionalism, empathy, and a caring point of view.

To me, the main goal is to expand our workforce. The secondary goal is to stay diverse, because we get better providers when we do so.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the use of affirmative action in admissions to colleges, universities, medical schools, and nursing schools. This has led to an enormous amount of worry and concern, particularly in medical school admissions in the world I’m in, where people start to say that diversity matters. Diversity is important.

I know many deans of medical schools immediately sent out messages of reassurance to their students, saying New York University or Stanford or Harvard or Minnesota or Case Western is still deeply concerned about diversity, and we’re going to do what we can to preserve attention to diversity.

I’ve served on admissions at a number of schools over the years for med school. I understand – and have been told – that diversity is important, and according to the Supreme Court, not explicitly by race. There are obviously many variables to take into account when trying to keep diversity at the forefront of admissions.

At the schools I’ve been at, including Columbia, NYU, University of Pittsburgh, University of Minnesota, and University of Pennsylvania, there are plenty of qualified students. Happily, we’ve always been engaged in some effort to try and whittle down the class to the size that we can manage and accept, and many qualified students don’t get admitted.

The first order of business for me is not to worry about how to maintain diversity. It’s to recognize that we need more doctors, nurses, and mental health care providers. I will, in a second, say a few words about diversity and where it fits into admissions, but I want to make the point clearly that what we should be doing is trying to expand the pool of students who are going to become doctors, nurses, mental health care providers, and social workers.

There are too many early retirements. We don’t have the person power we need to manage the health care challenges of an aging population. Let’s not get lost in arguing about what characteristics ought to get you into the finest medical schools. Let’s realize that we have to expand the number of schools we have.

We better be working pretty hard to expand our physician assistant programs, to make sure that we give full authority to qualified dentists and nurses who can help deliver some clinical care. We need more folks. That’s really where the battle ought to be: How do we get that done and how do we get it done quickly, not arguing about who’s in, who’s out, and why.

That said, diversity to me has never meant just race. I’m always interested in gender orientation, disability, and geographic input. Sometimes in decisions that you’re looking at, when I have students in front of me, they tell me they play a musical instrument or about the obstacles they had to overcome to get to medical school. Some of them will say they were involved in 4-H and did rodeo in high school or junior high school, which makes them a diverse potential student with characteristics that maybe some others don’t bring.

I’m not against diversity. I think having a rich set of experiences in any class – medicine, nursing, whatever it’s going to be – is beneficial to the students. They learn from each other. It is sometimes said that it’s also good for patients. I’m a little less excited about that, because I think our training goal should be to make every medical student and nursing student qualified to treat anybody.

I don’t think that, just because you’re Latinx or gay, that’s going to make a gay patient feel better. I think we should teach our students how to give care to everybody that they encounter. They shouldn’t have to match up characteristics to feel like they’re going to get quality care. That isn’t the right reason.

Diversity is important, I think, to teach our students, to broaden our research, and to make sure that bias doesn’t creep in to how we teach, learn, or behave. When you have a diverse set of providers, they can call that out and be on the alert for it, and that’s very important.

I also believe that we should think widely and broadly about diversity. Maybe race is out, but certainly other experiences related to income, background, struggle that got you to the point where you’re applying to medical school, motivation, the kinds of experiences you might have had caring for an elderly person, dealing with a disability or learning disability, and trying to overcome, let’s say, going to school in a poor area with not such a wonderful school, really help in terms of forming professionalism, empathy, and a caring point of view.

To me, the main goal is to expand our workforce. The secondary goal is to stay diverse, because we get better providers when we do so.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the use of affirmative action in admissions to colleges, universities, medical schools, and nursing schools. This has led to an enormous amount of worry and concern, particularly in medical school admissions in the world I’m in, where people start to say that diversity matters. Diversity is important.

I know many deans of medical schools immediately sent out messages of reassurance to their students, saying New York University or Stanford or Harvard or Minnesota or Case Western is still deeply concerned about diversity, and we’re going to do what we can to preserve attention to diversity.

I’ve served on admissions at a number of schools over the years for med school. I understand – and have been told – that diversity is important, and according to the Supreme Court, not explicitly by race. There are obviously many variables to take into account when trying to keep diversity at the forefront of admissions.

At the schools I’ve been at, including Columbia, NYU, University of Pittsburgh, University of Minnesota, and University of Pennsylvania, there are plenty of qualified students. Happily, we’ve always been engaged in some effort to try and whittle down the class to the size that we can manage and accept, and many qualified students don’t get admitted.

The first order of business for me is not to worry about how to maintain diversity. It’s to recognize that we need more doctors, nurses, and mental health care providers. I will, in a second, say a few words about diversity and where it fits into admissions, but I want to make the point clearly that what we should be doing is trying to expand the pool of students who are going to become doctors, nurses, mental health care providers, and social workers.

There are too many early retirements. We don’t have the person power we need to manage the health care challenges of an aging population. Let’s not get lost in arguing about what characteristics ought to get you into the finest medical schools. Let’s realize that we have to expand the number of schools we have.

We better be working pretty hard to expand our physician assistant programs, to make sure that we give full authority to qualified dentists and nurses who can help deliver some clinical care. We need more folks. That’s really where the battle ought to be: How do we get that done and how do we get it done quickly, not arguing about who’s in, who’s out, and why.

That said, diversity to me has never meant just race. I’m always interested in gender orientation, disability, and geographic input. Sometimes in decisions that you’re looking at, when I have students in front of me, they tell me they play a musical instrument or about the obstacles they had to overcome to get to medical school. Some of them will say they were involved in 4-H and did rodeo in high school or junior high school, which makes them a diverse potential student with characteristics that maybe some others don’t bring.

I’m not against diversity. I think having a rich set of experiences in any class – medicine, nursing, whatever it’s going to be – is beneficial to the students. They learn from each other. It is sometimes said that it’s also good for patients. I’m a little less excited about that, because I think our training goal should be to make every medical student and nursing student qualified to treat anybody.

I don’t think that, just because you’re Latinx or gay, that’s going to make a gay patient feel better. I think we should teach our students how to give care to everybody that they encounter. They shouldn’t have to match up characteristics to feel like they’re going to get quality care. That isn’t the right reason.

Diversity is important, I think, to teach our students, to broaden our research, and to make sure that bias doesn’t creep in to how we teach, learn, or behave. When you have a diverse set of providers, they can call that out and be on the alert for it, and that’s very important.

I also believe that we should think widely and broadly about diversity. Maybe race is out, but certainly other experiences related to income, background, struggle that got you to the point where you’re applying to medical school, motivation, the kinds of experiences you might have had caring for an elderly person, dealing with a disability or learning disability, and trying to overcome, let’s say, going to school in a poor area with not such a wonderful school, really help in terms of forming professionalism, empathy, and a caring point of view.

To me, the main goal is to expand our workforce. The secondary goal is to stay diverse, because we get better providers when we do so.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

THE COMPARISON

A An 11-year-old Hispanic boy with allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) on the abdomen. The geometric nature of the eruption and proximity to the belt buckle were highly suggestive of ACD to nickel; patch testing was not needed.

B A Black woman with ACD on the neck. A punch biopsy demonstrated spongiotic dermatitis that was typical of ACD. The diagnosis was supported by the patient’s history of dermatitis that developed after new products were applied to the hair. The patient declined patch testing.

C A Hispanic man with ACD on hair-bearing areas on the face where hair dye was used. The patient’s history of dermatitis following the application of hair dye was highly suggestive of ACD; patch testing confirmed the allergen was paraphenylenediamine (PPD).

Photographs courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD.

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is an inflammatory condition of the skin caused by an immunologic response to one or more identifiable allergens. A delayed-type immune response (type IV hypersensitivity reaction) occurs after the skin is reexposed to an offending allergen.¹ Severe pruritus is the main symptom of ACD in the early stages, accompanied by erythema, vesicles, and scaling in a distinct pattern corresponding to the allergen’s contact with the skin.² Delayed widespread dermatitis after exposure to an allergen—a phenomenon known as autoeczematization (id reaction)—also may occur.³

The gold-standard diagnostic tool for ACD is patch testing, in which the patient is re-exposed to the suspected contact allergen(s) and observed for the development of dermatitis.⁴ However, ACD can be diagnosed with a detailed patient history including occupation, hobbies, personal care practices, and possible triggers with subsequent rashes. Thorough clinical examination of the skin is paramount. Indicators of possible ACD include dermatitis that persists despite use of appropriate treatment, an unexplained flare of previously quiescent dermatitis, and a diagnosis of dermatitis without a clear cause.¹

Hairdressers, health care workers, and metal workers are at higher risk for ACD.⁵ Occupational ACD has notable socioeconomic implications, as it can result in frequent sick days, inability to perform tasks at work, and in some cases job loss.⁶

Patients with atopic dermatitis have impaired barrier function of the skin, permitting the entrance of allergens and subsequent sensitization.⁷ Allergic contact dermatitis is a challenge to manage, as complete avoidance of the allergen may not be possible.⁸

The underrepresentation of patients with skin of color (SOC) in educational materials as well as socioeconomic health disparities may contribute to the lower rates of diagnosis, patch testing, and treatment of ACD in this patient population.

Epidemiology

An ACD prevalence of 15.2% was reported in a study of 793 Danish patients who underwent skin prick and patch testing.⁹ Alinaghi et al¹⁰ conducted a meta-analysis of 20,107 patients across 28 studies who were patch tested to determine the prevalence of ACD in the general population. The researchers concluded that 20.1% (95% CI, 16.8%- 23.7%) of the general population experienced ACD. They analyzed 22 studies to determine the prevalence of ACD based on specific geographic area including 18,709 individuals from Europe with a prevalence of 19.5% (95% CI, 15.8%-23.4%), 1639 individuals from North America with a prevalence of 20.6% (95% CI, 9.2%-35.2%), and 2 studies from China (no other studies from Asia found) with a prevalence of 20.6% (95% CI, 17.4%-23.9%). Researchers did not find data from studies conducted in Africa or South America.¹⁰

The current available epidemiologic data on ACD are not representative of SOC populations. DeLeo et al¹¹ looked at patch test reaction patterns in association with race and ethnicity in a large sample size (N=19,457); 17,803 (92.9%) of these patients were White and only 1360 (7.1%) were Black. Large-scale, inclusive studies are needed, which can only be achieved with increased suspicion for ACD and increased access to patch testing.

Allergic contact dermatitis is more common in women, with nickel being the most frequently identified allergen (Figure, A).¹⁰ Personal care products often are linked to ACD (Figure, B). An analysis of data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group revealed that the top 5 personal care product allergens were methylisothiazolinone (a preservative), fragrance mix I, balsam of Peru, quaternium-15 (a preservative), and paraphenylenediamine (PPD)(a common component of hair dye) (Figure, C).¹²

There is a paucity of epidemiologic data among various ethnic groups; however, a few studies have suggested that there is no difference in the frequency rates of positive patch test results in Black vs White populations.^11,13,14 One study of patch test results from 114 Black patients and 877 White patients at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Ohio demonstrated a similar allergy frequency of 43.0% and 43.6%, respectively.¹³ However, there were differences in the types of allergen sensitization. Black patients had higher positive patch test rates for PPD than White patients (10.6% vs 4.5%). Black men had a higher frequency of sensitivity to PPD (21.2% vs 4.2%) and imidazolidinyl urea (a formaldehyde-releasing preservative) (9.1% vs 2.6%) compared to White men.¹³

Ethnicity and cultural practices influence epidemiologic patterns of ACD. Darker hair dyes used in Black patients¹⁴ and deeply pigmented PPD dye found in henna tattoos used in Indian and Black patients¹⁵ may lead to increased sensitization to PPD. Allergic contact dermatitis due to formaldehyde is more common in White patients, possibly due to more frequent use of formaldehyde-containing moisturizers, shampoos, and creams.¹⁵

Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones

In patients with SOC, the clinical features of ACD vary, posing a diagnostic challenge. Hyperpigmentation, lichenification, and induration are more likely to be seen than the papules, vesicles, and erythematous dermatitis often described in lighter skin tones or acute ACD. Erythema can be difficult to assess on darker skin and may appear violaceous or very faint pink.¹⁶

Worth noting

A high index of suspicion is necessary when interpreting patch tests in patients with SOC, as patch test kits use a reading plate with graduated intensities of erythema, papulation, and vesicular reactions to determine the likelihood of ACD. The potential contact allergens are placed on the skin on day 1 and covered. Then, on day 3 the allergens are removed. The skin is clinically evaluated using visual assessment and skin palpation. The reactions are graded as negative, irritant reaction, equivocal, weak positive, strong positive, or extreme reaction at around days 3 and 5 to capture both early and delayed reactions.¹⁷ A patch test may be positive even if obvious signs of erythema are not appreciated as expected.

Adjusting the lighting in the examination room, including side lighting, or using a blue background can be helpful in identifying erythema in darker skin tones.^15,16,18 Palpation of the skin also is useful, as even slight texture changes and induration are indicators of a possible skin reaction to the test allergen.¹⁵

Health disparity highlight

Clinical photographs of ACD and patch test results in patients with SOC are not commonplace in the literature. Positive patch test results in patients with darker skin tones vary from those of patients with lighter skin tones, and if the clinician reading the patch test result is not familiar with the findings in darker skin tones, the diagnosis may be delayed or missed.¹⁵

Furthermore, Scott et al¹⁵ highlighted that many dermatology residency training programs have a paucity of SOC education in their curriculum. This lack of representation may contribute to the diagnostic challenges encountered by health care providers.

Timely access to health care and education as well as economic stability are essential for the successful management of patients with ACD. Some individuals with SOC have been disproportionately affected by social determinants of health. Rodriguez-Homs et al¹⁹ demonstrated that the distance needed to travel to a clinic and the poverty rate of the county the patient lives in play a role in referral to a clinician specializing in contact dermatitis.

A retrospective registry review of 2310 patients undergoing patch testing at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston revealed that 2.5% were Black, 5.5% were Latinx, 8.3% were Asian, and the remaining 83.7% were White.²⁰ Qian et al²¹ also looked at patch testing patterns among various sociodemographic groups (N=1,107,530) and found that 69% of patients were White and 59% were female. Rates of patch testing among patients who were Black, lesser educated, male, lower income, and younger (children aged 0–12 years) were significantly lower than for other groups when ACD was suspected (P<.0001).²¹ The lower rates of patch testing in patients with SOC may be due to low suspicion of diagnosis, low referral rates due to limited medical insurance, and financial instability, as well as other socioeconomic factors.²⁰

Tamazian et al¹⁶ reviewed pediatric populations at 13 US centers and found that Black children received patch testing less frequently than White and Hispanic children. Another review of pediatric patch testing in patients with SOC found that a less comprehensive panel of allergens was used in this population.²²

The key to resolution of ACD is removal of the offending antigen, and if patients are not being tested, then they risk having a prolonged and complicated course of ACD with a poor prognosis. Patients with SOC also experience greater negative psychosocial impact due to ACD disease burden.^21,23

The lower rates of patch testing in Black patients cannot solely be attributed to difficulty diagnosing ACD in darker skin tones; it is likely due to the impact of social determinants of health. Alleviating health disparities will improve patient outcomes and quality of life.

THE COMPARISON

A An 11-year-old Hispanic boy with allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) on the abdomen. The geometric nature of the eruption and proximity to the belt buckle were highly suggestive of ACD to nickel; patch testing was not needed.

B A Black woman with ACD on the neck. A punch biopsy demonstrated spongiotic dermatitis that was typical of ACD. The diagnosis was supported by the patient’s history of dermatitis that developed after new products were applied to the hair. The patient declined patch testing.

C A Hispanic man with ACD on hair-bearing areas on the face where hair dye was used. The patient’s history of dermatitis following the application of hair dye was highly suggestive of ACD; patch testing confirmed the allergen was paraphenylenediamine (PPD).

Photographs courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD.

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is an inflammatory condition of the skin caused by an immunologic response to one or more identifiable allergens. A delayed-type immune response (type IV hypersensitivity reaction) occurs after the skin is reexposed to an offending allergen.¹ Severe pruritus is the main symptom of ACD in the early stages, accompanied by erythema, vesicles, and scaling in a distinct pattern corresponding to the allergen’s contact with the skin.² Delayed widespread dermatitis after exposure to an allergen—a phenomenon known as autoeczematization (id reaction)—also may occur.³

The gold-standard diagnostic tool for ACD is patch testing, in which the patient is re-exposed to the suspected contact allergen(s) and observed for the development of dermatitis.⁴ However, ACD can be diagnosed with a detailed patient history including occupation, hobbies, personal care practices, and possible triggers with subsequent rashes. Thorough clinical examination of the skin is paramount. Indicators of possible ACD include dermatitis that persists despite use of appropriate treatment, an unexplained flare of previously quiescent dermatitis, and a diagnosis of dermatitis without a clear cause.¹

Hairdressers, health care workers, and metal workers are at higher risk for ACD.⁵ Occupational ACD has notable socioeconomic implications, as it can result in frequent sick days, inability to perform tasks at work, and in some cases job loss.⁶

Patients with atopic dermatitis have impaired barrier function of the skin, permitting the entrance of allergens and subsequent sensitization.⁷ Allergic contact dermatitis is a challenge to manage, as complete avoidance of the allergen may not be possible.⁸

The underrepresentation of patients with skin of color (SOC) in educational materials as well as socioeconomic health disparities may contribute to the lower rates of diagnosis, patch testing, and treatment of ACD in this patient population.

Epidemiology

An ACD prevalence of 15.2% was reported in a study of 793 Danish patients who underwent skin prick and patch testing.⁹ Alinaghi et al¹⁰ conducted a meta-analysis of 20,107 patients across 28 studies who were patch tested to determine the prevalence of ACD in the general population. The researchers concluded that 20.1% (95% CI, 16.8%- 23.7%) of the general population experienced ACD. They analyzed 22 studies to determine the prevalence of ACD based on specific geographic area including 18,709 individuals from Europe with a prevalence of 19.5% (95% CI, 15.8%-23.4%), 1639 individuals from North America with a prevalence of 20.6% (95% CI, 9.2%-35.2%), and 2 studies from China (no other studies from Asia found) with a prevalence of 20.6% (95% CI, 17.4%-23.9%). Researchers did not find data from studies conducted in Africa or South America.¹⁰

The current available epidemiologic data on ACD are not representative of SOC populations. DeLeo et al¹¹ looked at patch test reaction patterns in association with race and ethnicity in a large sample size (N=19,457); 17,803 (92.9%) of these patients were White and only 1360 (7.1%) were Black. Large-scale, inclusive studies are needed, which can only be achieved with increased suspicion for ACD and increased access to patch testing.

Allergic contact dermatitis is more common in women, with nickel being the most frequently identified allergen (Figure, A).¹⁰ Personal care products often are linked to ACD (Figure, B). An analysis of data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group revealed that the top 5 personal care product allergens were methylisothiazolinone (a preservative), fragrance mix I, balsam of Peru, quaternium-15 (a preservative), and paraphenylenediamine (PPD)(a common component of hair dye) (Figure, C).¹²

There is a paucity of epidemiologic data among various ethnic groups; however, a few studies have suggested that there is no difference in the frequency rates of positive patch test results in Black vs White populations.^11,13,14 One study of patch test results from 114 Black patients and 877 White patients at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Ohio demonstrated a similar allergy frequency of 43.0% and 43.6%, respectively.¹³ However, there were differences in the types of allergen sensitization. Black patients had higher positive patch test rates for PPD than White patients (10.6% vs 4.5%). Black men had a higher frequency of sensitivity to PPD (21.2% vs 4.2%) and imidazolidinyl urea (a formaldehyde-releasing preservative) (9.1% vs 2.6%) compared to White men.¹³

Ethnicity and cultural practices influence epidemiologic patterns of ACD. Darker hair dyes used in Black patients¹⁴ and deeply pigmented PPD dye found in henna tattoos used in Indian and Black patients¹⁵ may lead to increased sensitization to PPD. Allergic contact dermatitis due to formaldehyde is more common in White patients, possibly due to more frequent use of formaldehyde-containing moisturizers, shampoos, and creams.¹⁵

Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones

In patients with SOC, the clinical features of ACD vary, posing a diagnostic challenge. Hyperpigmentation, lichenification, and induration are more likely to be seen than the papules, vesicles, and erythematous dermatitis often described in lighter skin tones or acute ACD. Erythema can be difficult to assess on darker skin and may appear violaceous or very faint pink.¹⁶

Worth noting

A high index of suspicion is necessary when interpreting patch tests in patients with SOC, as patch test kits use a reading plate with graduated intensities of erythema, papulation, and vesicular reactions to determine the likelihood of ACD. The potential contact allergens are placed on the skin on day 1 and covered. Then, on day 3 the allergens are removed. The skin is clinically evaluated using visual assessment and skin palpation. The reactions are graded as negative, irritant reaction, equivocal, weak positive, strong positive, or extreme reaction at around days 3 and 5 to capture both early and delayed reactions.¹⁷ A patch test may be positive even if obvious signs of erythema are not appreciated as expected.

Adjusting the lighting in the examination room, including side lighting, or using a blue background can be helpful in identifying erythema in darker skin tones.^15,16,18 Palpation of the skin also is useful, as even slight texture changes and induration are indicators of a possible skin reaction to the test allergen.¹⁵

Health disparity highlight

Clinical photographs of ACD and patch test results in patients with SOC are not commonplace in the literature. Positive patch test results in patients with darker skin tones vary from those of patients with lighter skin tones, and if the clinician reading the patch test result is not familiar with the findings in darker skin tones, the diagnosis may be delayed or missed.¹⁵

Furthermore, Scott et al¹⁵ highlighted that many dermatology residency training programs have a paucity of SOC education in their curriculum. This lack of representation may contribute to the diagnostic challenges encountered by health care providers.

Timely access to health care and education as well as economic stability are essential for the successful management of patients with ACD. Some individuals with SOC have been disproportionately affected by social determinants of health. Rodriguez-Homs et al¹⁹ demonstrated that the distance needed to travel to a clinic and the poverty rate of the county the patient lives in play a role in referral to a clinician specializing in contact dermatitis.

A retrospective registry review of 2310 patients undergoing patch testing at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston revealed that 2.5% were Black, 5.5% were Latinx, 8.3% were Asian, and the remaining 83.7% were White.²⁰ Qian et al²¹ also looked at patch testing patterns among various sociodemographic groups (N=1,107,530) and found that 69% of patients were White and 59% were female. Rates of patch testing among patients who were Black, lesser educated, male, lower income, and younger (children aged 0–12 years) were significantly lower than for other groups when ACD was suspected (P<.0001).²¹ The lower rates of patch testing in patients with SOC may be due to low suspicion of diagnosis, low referral rates due to limited medical insurance, and financial instability, as well as other socioeconomic factors.²⁰

Tamazian et al¹⁶ reviewed pediatric populations at 13 US centers and found that Black children received patch testing less frequently than White and Hispanic children. Another review of pediatric patch testing in patients with SOC found that a less comprehensive panel of allergens was used in this population.²²

The key to resolution of ACD is removal of the offending antigen, and if patients are not being tested, then they risk having a prolonged and complicated course of ACD with a poor prognosis. Patients with SOC also experience greater negative psychosocial impact due to ACD disease burden.^21,23

The lower rates of patch testing in Black patients cannot solely be attributed to difficulty diagnosing ACD in darker skin tones; it is likely due to the impact of social determinants of health. Alleviating health disparities will improve patient outcomes and quality of life.

THE COMPARISON

A An 11-year-old Hispanic boy with allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) on the abdomen. The geometric nature of the eruption and proximity to the belt buckle were highly suggestive of ACD to nickel; patch testing was not needed.

B A Black woman with ACD on the neck. A punch biopsy demonstrated spongiotic dermatitis that was typical of ACD. The diagnosis was supported by the patient’s history of dermatitis that developed after new products were applied to the hair. The patient declined patch testing.

C A Hispanic man with ACD on hair-bearing areas on the face where hair dye was used. The patient’s history of dermatitis following the application of hair dye was highly suggestive of ACD; patch testing confirmed the allergen was paraphenylenediamine (PPD).

Photographs courtesy of Richard P. Usatine, MD.

Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is an inflammatory condition of the skin caused by an immunologic response to one or more identifiable allergens. A delayed-type immune response (type IV hypersensitivity reaction) occurs after the skin is reexposed to an offending allergen.¹ Severe pruritus is the main symptom of ACD in the early stages, accompanied by erythema, vesicles, and scaling in a distinct pattern corresponding to the allergen’s contact with the skin.² Delayed widespread dermatitis after exposure to an allergen—a phenomenon known as autoeczematization (id reaction)—also may occur.³

The gold-standard diagnostic tool for ACD is patch testing, in which the patient is re-exposed to the suspected contact allergen(s) and observed for the development of dermatitis.⁴ However, ACD can be diagnosed with a detailed patient history including occupation, hobbies, personal care practices, and possible triggers with subsequent rashes. Thorough clinical examination of the skin is paramount. Indicators of possible ACD include dermatitis that persists despite use of appropriate treatment, an unexplained flare of previously quiescent dermatitis, and a diagnosis of dermatitis without a clear cause.¹

Hairdressers, health care workers, and metal workers are at higher risk for ACD.⁵ Occupational ACD has notable socioeconomic implications, as it can result in frequent sick days, inability to perform tasks at work, and in some cases job loss.⁶

Patients with atopic dermatitis have impaired barrier function of the skin, permitting the entrance of allergens and subsequent sensitization.⁷ Allergic contact dermatitis is a challenge to manage, as complete avoidance of the allergen may not be possible.⁸

The underrepresentation of patients with skin of color (SOC) in educational materials as well as socioeconomic health disparities may contribute to the lower rates of diagnosis, patch testing, and treatment of ACD in this patient population.

Epidemiology

An ACD prevalence of 15.2% was reported in a study of 793 Danish patients who underwent skin prick and patch testing.⁹ Alinaghi et al¹⁰ conducted a meta-analysis of 20,107 patients across 28 studies who were patch tested to determine the prevalence of ACD in the general population. The researchers concluded that 20.1% (95% CI, 16.8%- 23.7%) of the general population experienced ACD. They analyzed 22 studies to determine the prevalence of ACD based on specific geographic area including 18,709 individuals from Europe with a prevalence of 19.5% (95% CI, 15.8%-23.4%), 1639 individuals from North America with a prevalence of 20.6% (95% CI, 9.2%-35.2%), and 2 studies from China (no other studies from Asia found) with a prevalence of 20.6% (95% CI, 17.4%-23.9%). Researchers did not find data from studies conducted in Africa or South America.¹⁰

The current available epidemiologic data on ACD are not representative of SOC populations. DeLeo et al¹¹ looked at patch test reaction patterns in association with race and ethnicity in a large sample size (N=19,457); 17,803 (92.9%) of these patients were White and only 1360 (7.1%) were Black. Large-scale, inclusive studies are needed, which can only be achieved with increased suspicion for ACD and increased access to patch testing.

Allergic contact dermatitis is more common in women, with nickel being the most frequently identified allergen (Figure, A).¹⁰ Personal care products often are linked to ACD (Figure, B). An analysis of data from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group revealed that the top 5 personal care product allergens were methylisothiazolinone (a preservative), fragrance mix I, balsam of Peru, quaternium-15 (a preservative), and paraphenylenediamine (PPD)(a common component of hair dye) (Figure, C).¹²

There is a paucity of epidemiologic data among various ethnic groups; however, a few studies have suggested that there is no difference in the frequency rates of positive patch test results in Black vs White populations.^11,13,14 One study of patch test results from 114 Black patients and 877 White patients at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation in Ohio demonstrated a similar allergy frequency of 43.0% and 43.6%, respectively.¹³ However, there were differences in the types of allergen sensitization. Black patients had higher positive patch test rates for PPD than White patients (10.6% vs 4.5%). Black men had a higher frequency of sensitivity to PPD (21.2% vs 4.2%) and imidazolidinyl urea (a formaldehyde-releasing preservative) (9.1% vs 2.6%) compared to White men.¹³

Ethnicity and cultural practices influence epidemiologic patterns of ACD. Darker hair dyes used in Black patients¹⁴ and deeply pigmented PPD dye found in henna tattoos used in Indian and Black patients¹⁵ may lead to increased sensitization to PPD. Allergic contact dermatitis due to formaldehyde is more common in White patients, possibly due to more frequent use of formaldehyde-containing moisturizers, shampoos, and creams.¹⁵

Key clinical features in people with darker skin tones

In patients with SOC, the clinical features of ACD vary, posing a diagnostic challenge. Hyperpigmentation, lichenification, and induration are more likely to be seen than the papules, vesicles, and erythematous dermatitis often described in lighter skin tones or acute ACD. Erythema can be difficult to assess on darker skin and may appear violaceous or very faint pink.¹⁶

Worth noting

A high index of suspicion is necessary when interpreting patch tests in patients with SOC, as patch test kits use a reading plate with graduated intensities of erythema, papulation, and vesicular reactions to determine the likelihood of ACD. The potential contact allergens are placed on the skin on day 1 and covered. Then, on day 3 the allergens are removed. The skin is clinically evaluated using visual assessment and skin palpation. The reactions are graded as negative, irritant reaction, equivocal, weak positive, strong positive, or extreme reaction at around days 3 and 5 to capture both early and delayed reactions.¹⁷ A patch test may be positive even if obvious signs of erythema are not appreciated as expected.

Adjusting the lighting in the examination room, including side lighting, or using a blue background can be helpful in identifying erythema in darker skin tones.^15,16,18 Palpation of the skin also is useful, as even slight texture changes and induration are indicators of a possible skin reaction to the test allergen.¹⁵

Health disparity highlight

Clinical photographs of ACD and patch test results in patients with SOC are not commonplace in the literature. Positive patch test results in patients with darker skin tones vary from those of patients with lighter skin tones, and if the clinician reading the patch test result is not familiar with the findings in darker skin tones, the diagnosis may be delayed or missed.¹⁵

Furthermore, Scott et al¹⁵ highlighted that many dermatology residency training programs have a paucity of SOC education in their curriculum. This lack of representation may contribute to the diagnostic challenges encountered by health care providers.

Timely access to health care and education as well as economic stability are essential for the successful management of patients with ACD. Some individuals with SOC have been disproportionately affected by social determinants of health. Rodriguez-Homs et al¹⁹ demonstrated that the distance needed to travel to a clinic and the poverty rate of the county the patient lives in play a role in referral to a clinician specializing in contact dermatitis.

A retrospective registry review of 2310 patients undergoing patch testing at the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston revealed that 2.5% were Black, 5.5% were Latinx, 8.3% were Asian, and the remaining 83.7% were White.²⁰ Qian et al²¹ also looked at patch testing patterns among various sociodemographic groups (N=1,107,530) and found that 69% of patients were White and 59% were female. Rates of patch testing among patients who were Black, lesser educated, male, lower income, and younger (children aged 0–12 years) were significantly lower than for other groups when ACD was suspected (P<.0001).²¹ The lower rates of patch testing in patients with SOC may be due to low suspicion of diagnosis, low referral rates due to limited medical insurance, and financial instability, as well as other socioeconomic factors.²⁰

Tamazian et al¹⁶ reviewed pediatric populations at 13 US centers and found that Black children received patch testing less frequently than White and Hispanic children. Another review of pediatric patch testing in patients with SOC found that a less comprehensive panel of allergens was used in this population.²²

The key to resolution of ACD is removal of the offending antigen, and if patients are not being tested, then they risk having a prolonged and complicated course of ACD with a poor prognosis. Patients with SOC also experience greater negative psychosocial impact due to ACD disease burden.^21,23

The lower rates of patch testing in Black patients cannot solely be attributed to difficulty diagnosing ACD in darker skin tones; it is likely due to the impact of social determinants of health. Alleviating health disparities will improve patient outcomes and quality of life.

Dermatology residency positions continue to be highly coveted among applicants in the match. In 2019, dermatology proved to be the most competitive specialty, with 36.3% of US medical school seniors and independent applicants going unmatched.¹ Prior to the transition to a pass/fail system, the mean US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score for matched applicants increased from 247 in 2014 to 251 in 2019. The growing number of scholarly activities reported by applicants has contributed to the competitiveness of the specialty. In 2018, the mean number of abstracts, presentations, and publications reported by matched applicants was 14.71, which was higher than other competitive specialties, including orthopedic surgery and otolaryngology (11.5 and 10.4, respectively). Dermatology applicants who did not match in 2018 reported a mean of 8.6 abstracts, presentations, and publications, which was on par with successful applicants in many other specialties.¹ In 2011, Stratman and Ness² found that publishing manuscripts and listing research experience were factors strongly associated with matching into dermatology for reapplicants. These trends in reported research have added pressure for applicants to increase their publications.

Given that many students do not choose a career in dermatology until later in medical school, some students choose to take a gap year between their third and fourth years of medical school to pursue a research fellowship (RF) and produce publications, in theory to increase the chances of matching in dermatology. A survey of dermatology applicants conducted by Costello et al³ in 2021 found that, of the students who completed a gap year (n=90; 31.25%), 78.7% (n=71) of them completed an RF, and those who completed RFs were more likely to match at top dermatology residency programs (P<.01). The authors also reported that there was no significant difference in overall match rates between gap-year and non–gap-year applicants.³ Another survey of 328 medical students found that the most common reason students take years off for research during medical school is to increase competitiveness for residency application.⁴ Although it is clear that students completing an RF often find success in the match, there are limited published data on how those involved in selecting dermatology residents view this additional year. We surveyed faculty members participating in the resident selection process to assess their viewpoints on how RFs factored into an applicant’s odds of matching into dermatology residency and performance as a resident.

Materials and Methods

An institutional review board application was submitted through the Geisinger Health System (Danville, Pennsylvania), and an exemption to complete the survey was granted. The survey consisted of 16 questions via REDCap electronic data capture and was sent to a listserve of dermatology program directors who were asked to distribute the survey to program chairs and faculty members within their department. Survey questions evaluated the participants’ involvement in medical student advising and the residency selection process. Questions relating to the respondents’ opinions were based on a 5-point Likert scale on level of agreement (1=strongly agree; 5=strongly disagree) or importance (1=a great deal; 5=not at all). All responses were collected anonymously. Data points were compiled and analyzed using REDCap. Statistical analysis via χ² tests were conducted when appropriate.

Results

The survey was sent to 142 individuals and distributed to faculty members within those departments between August 16, 2019, and September 24, 2019. The survey elicited a total of 110 respondents. Demographic information is shown in eTable 1. Of these respondents, 35.5% were program directors, 23.6% were program chairs, 3.6% were both program director and program chair, and 37.3% were core faculty members. Although respondents’ roles were varied, 96.4% indicated that they were involved in both advising medical students and in selecting residents.

None of the respondents indicated that they always recommend that students complete an RF, and only 4.5% indicated that they usually recommend it; 40% of respondents rarely or never recommend an RF, while 55.5% sometimes recommend it. Although there was a variety of responses to how frequently faculty members recommend an RF, almost all respondents (98.2%) agreed that the reason medical students pursued an RF prior to residency application was to increase the competitiveness of their residency application. However, 20% of respondents believed that students in this cohort were seeking to gain a deeper understanding of the specialty, and 27.3% thought that this cohort had genuine interest in research. Interestingly, despite the medical students’ intentions of choosing an RF, most respondents (67.3%) agreed or strongly agreed that the publications produced by fellows make an impact on the dermatologic scientific community.

Although some respondents indicated that completion of an RF positively impacts resident performance with regard to patient care, most indicated that the impact was a little (26.4%) or not at all (50%). Additionally, a minority of respondents (11.8%) believed that RFs positively impact resident performance on in-service and board examinations at least a moderate amount, with 62.7% indicating no positive impact at all. Only 12.7% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that completion of an RF led to increased applicant involvement in research throughout their career, and most (73.6%) believed there were downsides to completing an RF. Finally, only 20% agreed or strongly agreed that students who completed an RF were more dedicated to the field of dermatology (eTable 2).

Further evaluation of the data indicated that the perceived utility of RFs did not affect respondents’ recommendation on whether to pursue an RF or not. For example, of the 4.5% of respondents who indicated that they always or usually recommended RFs, only 1 respondent believed that students who completed an RF were more dedicated to the field of dermatology than those who did not. Although 55.5% of respondents answered that they sometimes recommended completion of an RF, less than a quarter of this group believed that students who completed an RF were more likely to be heavily involved in research throughout their career (P=.99).

Overall, 11.8% of respondents indicated that completion of a dermatology RF influenced the evaluation of an applicant a great deal or a lot, while 53.6% of respondents indicated a little or no influence at all. Most respondents (62.8%) agreed or strongly agreed that completion of an RF can compensate for flaws in a residency application. Furthermore, when asked if completion of an RF could set 2 otherwise equivocal applicants apart from one another, 46.4% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, while only 17.3% disagreed or strongly disagreed (eTable 2).

Comment

This study characterized how completion of an RF is viewed by those involved in advising medical students and selecting dermatology residents. The growing pressure for applicants to increase the number of publications combined with the competitiveness of applying for a dermatology residency position has led to increased participation in RFs. However, studies have found that students who completed an RF often did so despite a lack of interest.⁴ Nonetheless, little is known about how this is perceived by those involved in choosing residents.

We found that few respondents always or usually advised applicants to complete an RF, but the majority sometimes recommended them, demonstrating the complexity of this issue. Completion of an RF impacted 11.8% of respondents’ overall opinion of an applicant a lot or a great deal, while most respondents (53.6%) were influenced a little or not at all. However, 46.4% of respondents indicated that completion of a dermatology RF would set apart 2 applicants of otherwise equal standing, and 62.8% agreed or strongly agreed that completion of an RF would compensate for flaws in an application. These responses align with the findings of a study conducted by Kaffenberger et al,⁵ who surveyed members of the Association of Professors of Dermatology and found that 74.5% (73/98) of mentors almost always or sometimes recommended a research gap year for reasons that included low grades, low USMLE Step scores, and little research. These data suggest that completion of an RF can give a competitive advantage to applicants despite most advisors acknowledging that these applicants are not likely to be involved in research throughout their careers, perform better on standardized examinations, or provide better patient care.

Given the complexity of this issue, respondents may not have been able to accurately answer the question about how much an RF influenced their overall opinion of an applicant because of subconscious bias. Furthermore, respondents likely tailored their recommendations to complete an RF based on individual applicant strengths and weaknesses, and the specific reasons why one may recommend an RF need to be further investigated.

Although there may be other perceived advantages to RFs that were not captured by our survey, completion of a dermatology RF is not without disadvantages. Fellowships often are unfunded and offered in cities with high costs of living. Additionally, students are forced to delay graduation from medical school by a year at minimum and continue to accrue interest on medical school loans during this time. The financial burdens of completing an RF may exclude students of lower socioeconomic status and contribute to a decrease in diversity within the field. Dermatology has been found to be the second least diverse specialty, behind orthopedics.⁶ Soliman et al⁷ found that racial minorities and low-income students were more likely to cite socioeconomic barriers as factors involved in their decision not to pursue a career in dermatology. This notion was supported by Rinderknecht et al,⁸ who found that Black and Latinx dermatology applicants were more likely to come from disadvantaged backgrounds, and Black applicants were more likely to indicate financial concerns as their primary reason for not pursuing an RF. The impact of accumulated student debt and decreased access should be carefully weighed against the potential benefits of an RF. However, as the USMLE transitions their Step 1 score reporting from numerical to a pass/fail system, it also is possible that dermatology programs will place more emphasis on research productivity when evaluating applications for residency. Overall, the decision to recommend an RF represents an extremely complex topic, as indicated by the results of this study.

Limitations—Our survey-based study is limited by response rate and response bias. Despite the large number of responses, the overall response rate cannot be determined because it is unknown how many total faculty members actually received the survey. Moreover, data collected from current dermatology residents who have completed RFs vs those who have not as they pertain to resident performance and preparedness for the rigors of a dermatology residency would be useful.

Dermatology residency positions continue to be highly coveted among applicants in the match. In 2019, dermatology proved to be the most competitive specialty, with 36.3% of US medical school seniors and independent applicants going unmatched.¹ Prior to the transition to a pass/fail system, the mean US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score for matched applicants increased from 247 in 2014 to 251 in 2019. The growing number of scholarly activities reported by applicants has contributed to the competitiveness of the specialty. In 2018, the mean number of abstracts, presentations, and publications reported by matched applicants was 14.71, which was higher than other competitive specialties, including orthopedic surgery and otolaryngology (11.5 and 10.4, respectively). Dermatology applicants who did not match in 2018 reported a mean of 8.6 abstracts, presentations, and publications, which was on par with successful applicants in many other specialties.¹ In 2011, Stratman and Ness² found that publishing manuscripts and listing research experience were factors strongly associated with matching into dermatology for reapplicants. These trends in reported research have added pressure for applicants to increase their publications.

Given that many students do not choose a career in dermatology until later in medical school, some students choose to take a gap year between their third and fourth years of medical school to pursue a research fellowship (RF) and produce publications, in theory to increase the chances of matching in dermatology. A survey of dermatology applicants conducted by Costello et al³ in 2021 found that, of the students who completed a gap year (n=90; 31.25%), 78.7% (n=71) of them completed an RF, and those who completed RFs were more likely to match at top dermatology residency programs (P<.01). The authors also reported that there was no significant difference in overall match rates between gap-year and non–gap-year applicants.³ Another survey of 328 medical students found that the most common reason students take years off for research during medical school is to increase competitiveness for residency application.⁴ Although it is clear that students completing an RF often find success in the match, there are limited published data on how those involved in selecting dermatology residents view this additional year. We surveyed faculty members participating in the resident selection process to assess their viewpoints on how RFs factored into an applicant’s odds of matching into dermatology residency and performance as a resident.

Materials and Methods

An institutional review board application was submitted through the Geisinger Health System (Danville, Pennsylvania), and an exemption to complete the survey was granted. The survey consisted of 16 questions via REDCap electronic data capture and was sent to a listserve of dermatology program directors who were asked to distribute the survey to program chairs and faculty members within their department. Survey questions evaluated the participants’ involvement in medical student advising and the residency selection process. Questions relating to the respondents’ opinions were based on a 5-point Likert scale on level of agreement (1=strongly agree; 5=strongly disagree) or importance (1=a great deal; 5=not at all). All responses were collected anonymously. Data points were compiled and analyzed using REDCap. Statistical analysis via χ² tests were conducted when appropriate.

Results

The survey was sent to 142 individuals and distributed to faculty members within those departments between August 16, 2019, and September 24, 2019. The survey elicited a total of 110 respondents. Demographic information is shown in eTable 1. Of these respondents, 35.5% were program directors, 23.6% were program chairs, 3.6% were both program director and program chair, and 37.3% were core faculty members. Although respondents’ roles were varied, 96.4% indicated that they were involved in both advising medical students and in selecting residents.

None of the respondents indicated that they always recommend that students complete an RF, and only 4.5% indicated that they usually recommend it; 40% of respondents rarely or never recommend an RF, while 55.5% sometimes recommend it. Although there was a variety of responses to how frequently faculty members recommend an RF, almost all respondents (98.2%) agreed that the reason medical students pursued an RF prior to residency application was to increase the competitiveness of their residency application. However, 20% of respondents believed that students in this cohort were seeking to gain a deeper understanding of the specialty, and 27.3% thought that this cohort had genuine interest in research. Interestingly, despite the medical students’ intentions of choosing an RF, most respondents (67.3%) agreed or strongly agreed that the publications produced by fellows make an impact on the dermatologic scientific community.

Although some respondents indicated that completion of an RF positively impacts resident performance with regard to patient care, most indicated that the impact was a little (26.4%) or not at all (50%). Additionally, a minority of respondents (11.8%) believed that RFs positively impact resident performance on in-service and board examinations at least a moderate amount, with 62.7% indicating no positive impact at all. Only 12.7% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that completion of an RF led to increased applicant involvement in research throughout their career, and most (73.6%) believed there were downsides to completing an RF. Finally, only 20% agreed or strongly agreed that students who completed an RF were more dedicated to the field of dermatology (eTable 2).

Further evaluation of the data indicated that the perceived utility of RFs did not affect respondents’ recommendation on whether to pursue an RF or not. For example, of the 4.5% of respondents who indicated that they always or usually recommended RFs, only 1 respondent believed that students who completed an RF were more dedicated to the field of dermatology than those who did not. Although 55.5% of respondents answered that they sometimes recommended completion of an RF, less than a quarter of this group believed that students who completed an RF were more likely to be heavily involved in research throughout their career (P=.99).

Overall, 11.8% of respondents indicated that completion of a dermatology RF influenced the evaluation of an applicant a great deal or a lot, while 53.6% of respondents indicated a little or no influence at all. Most respondents (62.8%) agreed or strongly agreed that completion of an RF can compensate for flaws in a residency application. Furthermore, when asked if completion of an RF could set 2 otherwise equivocal applicants apart from one another, 46.4% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, while only 17.3% disagreed or strongly disagreed (eTable 2).

Comment

This study characterized how completion of an RF is viewed by those involved in advising medical students and selecting dermatology residents. The growing pressure for applicants to increase the number of publications combined with the competitiveness of applying for a dermatology residency position has led to increased participation in RFs. However, studies have found that students who completed an RF often did so despite a lack of interest.⁴ Nonetheless, little is known about how this is perceived by those involved in choosing residents.

We found that few respondents always or usually advised applicants to complete an RF, but the majority sometimes recommended them, demonstrating the complexity of this issue. Completion of an RF impacted 11.8% of respondents’ overall opinion of an applicant a lot or a great deal, while most respondents (53.6%) were influenced a little or not at all. However, 46.4% of respondents indicated that completion of a dermatology RF would set apart 2 applicants of otherwise equal standing, and 62.8% agreed or strongly agreed that completion of an RF would compensate for flaws in an application. These responses align with the findings of a study conducted by Kaffenberger et al,⁵ who surveyed members of the Association of Professors of Dermatology and found that 74.5% (73/98) of mentors almost always or sometimes recommended a research gap year for reasons that included low grades, low USMLE Step scores, and little research. These data suggest that completion of an RF can give a competitive advantage to applicants despite most advisors acknowledging that these applicants are not likely to be involved in research throughout their careers, perform better on standardized examinations, or provide better patient care.

Given the complexity of this issue, respondents may not have been able to accurately answer the question about how much an RF influenced their overall opinion of an applicant because of subconscious bias. Furthermore, respondents likely tailored their recommendations to complete an RF based on individual applicant strengths and weaknesses, and the specific reasons why one may recommend an RF need to be further investigated.

Although there may be other perceived advantages to RFs that were not captured by our survey, completion of a dermatology RF is not without disadvantages. Fellowships often are unfunded and offered in cities with high costs of living. Additionally, students are forced to delay graduation from medical school by a year at minimum and continue to accrue interest on medical school loans during this time. The financial burdens of completing an RF may exclude students of lower socioeconomic status and contribute to a decrease in diversity within the field. Dermatology has been found to be the second least diverse specialty, behind orthopedics.⁶ Soliman et al⁷ found that racial minorities and low-income students were more likely to cite socioeconomic barriers as factors involved in their decision not to pursue a career in dermatology. This notion was supported by Rinderknecht et al,⁸ who found that Black and Latinx dermatology applicants were more likely to come from disadvantaged backgrounds, and Black applicants were more likely to indicate financial concerns as their primary reason for not pursuing an RF. The impact of accumulated student debt and decreased access should be carefully weighed against the potential benefits of an RF. However, as the USMLE transitions their Step 1 score reporting from numerical to a pass/fail system, it also is possible that dermatology programs will place more emphasis on research productivity when evaluating applications for residency. Overall, the decision to recommend an RF represents an extremely complex topic, as indicated by the results of this study.

Limitations—Our survey-based study is limited by response rate and response bias. Despite the large number of responses, the overall response rate cannot be determined because it is unknown how many total faculty members actually received the survey. Moreover, data collected from current dermatology residents who have completed RFs vs those who have not as they pertain to resident performance and preparedness for the rigors of a dermatology residency would be useful.

Dermatology residency positions continue to be highly coveted among applicants in the match. In 2019, dermatology proved to be the most competitive specialty, with 36.3% of US medical school seniors and independent applicants going unmatched.¹ Prior to the transition to a pass/fail system, the mean US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 score for matched applicants increased from 247 in 2014 to 251 in 2019. The growing number of scholarly activities reported by applicants has contributed to the competitiveness of the specialty. In 2018, the mean number of abstracts, presentations, and publications reported by matched applicants was 14.71, which was higher than other competitive specialties, including orthopedic surgery and otolaryngology (11.5 and 10.4, respectively). Dermatology applicants who did not match in 2018 reported a mean of 8.6 abstracts, presentations, and publications, which was on par with successful applicants in many other specialties.¹ In 2011, Stratman and Ness² found that publishing manuscripts and listing research experience were factors strongly associated with matching into dermatology for reapplicants. These trends in reported research have added pressure for applicants to increase their publications.

Given that many students do not choose a career in dermatology until later in medical school, some students choose to take a gap year between their third and fourth years of medical school to pursue a research fellowship (RF) and produce publications, in theory to increase the chances of matching in dermatology. A survey of dermatology applicants conducted by Costello et al³ in 2021 found that, of the students who completed a gap year (n=90; 31.25%), 78.7% (n=71) of them completed an RF, and those who completed RFs were more likely to match at top dermatology residency programs (P<.01). The authors also reported that there was no significant difference in overall match rates between gap-year and non–gap-year applicants.³ Another survey of 328 medical students found that the most common reason students take years off for research during medical school is to increase competitiveness for residency application.⁴ Although it is clear that students completing an RF often find success in the match, there are limited published data on how those involved in selecting dermatology residents view this additional year. We surveyed faculty members participating in the resident selection process to assess their viewpoints on how RFs factored into an applicant’s odds of matching into dermatology residency and performance as a resident.

Materials and Methods

An institutional review board application was submitted through the Geisinger Health System (Danville, Pennsylvania), and an exemption to complete the survey was granted. The survey consisted of 16 questions via REDCap electronic data capture and was sent to a listserve of dermatology program directors who were asked to distribute the survey to program chairs and faculty members within their department. Survey questions evaluated the participants’ involvement in medical student advising and the residency selection process. Questions relating to the respondents’ opinions were based on a 5-point Likert scale on level of agreement (1=strongly agree; 5=strongly disagree) or importance (1=a great deal; 5=not at all). All responses were collected anonymously. Data points were compiled and analyzed using REDCap. Statistical analysis via χ² tests were conducted when appropriate.

Results

The survey was sent to 142 individuals and distributed to faculty members within those departments between August 16, 2019, and September 24, 2019. The survey elicited a total of 110 respondents. Demographic information is shown in eTable 1. Of these respondents, 35.5% were program directors, 23.6% were program chairs, 3.6% were both program director and program chair, and 37.3% were core faculty members. Although respondents’ roles were varied, 96.4% indicated that they were involved in both advising medical students and in selecting residents.

None of the respondents indicated that they always recommend that students complete an RF, and only 4.5% indicated that they usually recommend it; 40% of respondents rarely or never recommend an RF, while 55.5% sometimes recommend it. Although there was a variety of responses to how frequently faculty members recommend an RF, almost all respondents (98.2%) agreed that the reason medical students pursued an RF prior to residency application was to increase the competitiveness of their residency application. However, 20% of respondents believed that students in this cohort were seeking to gain a deeper understanding of the specialty, and 27.3% thought that this cohort had genuine interest in research. Interestingly, despite the medical students’ intentions of choosing an RF, most respondents (67.3%) agreed or strongly agreed that the publications produced by fellows make an impact on the dermatologic scientific community.

Although some respondents indicated that completion of an RF positively impacts resident performance with regard to patient care, most indicated that the impact was a little (26.4%) or not at all (50%). Additionally, a minority of respondents (11.8%) believed that RFs positively impact resident performance on in-service and board examinations at least a moderate amount, with 62.7% indicating no positive impact at all. Only 12.7% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that completion of an RF led to increased applicant involvement in research throughout their career, and most (73.6%) believed there were downsides to completing an RF. Finally, only 20% agreed or strongly agreed that students who completed an RF were more dedicated to the field of dermatology (eTable 2).

Further evaluation of the data indicated that the perceived utility of RFs did not affect respondents’ recommendation on whether to pursue an RF or not. For example, of the 4.5% of respondents who indicated that they always or usually recommended RFs, only 1 respondent believed that students who completed an RF were more dedicated to the field of dermatology than those who did not. Although 55.5% of respondents answered that they sometimes recommended completion of an RF, less than a quarter of this group believed that students who completed an RF were more likely to be heavily involved in research throughout their career (P=.99).

Overall, 11.8% of respondents indicated that completion of a dermatology RF influenced the evaluation of an applicant a great deal or a lot, while 53.6% of respondents indicated a little or no influence at all. Most respondents (62.8%) agreed or strongly agreed that completion of an RF can compensate for flaws in a residency application. Furthermore, when asked if completion of an RF could set 2 otherwise equivocal applicants apart from one another, 46.4% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, while only 17.3% disagreed or strongly disagreed (eTable 2).

Comment

This study characterized how completion of an RF is viewed by those involved in advising medical students and selecting dermatology residents. The growing pressure for applicants to increase the number of publications combined with the competitiveness of applying for a dermatology residency position has led to increased participation in RFs. However, studies have found that students who completed an RF often did so despite a lack of interest.⁴ Nonetheless, little is known about how this is perceived by those involved in choosing residents.

We found that few respondents always or usually advised applicants to complete an RF, but the majority sometimes recommended them, demonstrating the complexity of this issue. Completion of an RF impacted 11.8% of respondents’ overall opinion of an applicant a lot or a great deal, while most respondents (53.6%) were influenced a little or not at all. However, 46.4% of respondents indicated that completion of a dermatology RF would set apart 2 applicants of otherwise equal standing, and 62.8% agreed or strongly agreed that completion of an RF would compensate for flaws in an application. These responses align with the findings of a study conducted by Kaffenberger et al,⁵ who surveyed members of the Association of Professors of Dermatology and found that 74.5% (73/98) of mentors almost always or sometimes recommended a research gap year for reasons that included low grades, low USMLE Step scores, and little research. These data suggest that completion of an RF can give a competitive advantage to applicants despite most advisors acknowledging that these applicants are not likely to be involved in research throughout their careers, perform better on standardized examinations, or provide better patient care.

Given the complexity of this issue, respondents may not have been able to accurately answer the question about how much an RF influenced their overall opinion of an applicant because of subconscious bias. Furthermore, respondents likely tailored their recommendations to complete an RF based on individual applicant strengths and weaknesses, and the specific reasons why one may recommend an RF need to be further investigated.

Although there may be other perceived advantages to RFs that were not captured by our survey, completion of a dermatology RF is not without disadvantages. Fellowships often are unfunded and offered in cities with high costs of living. Additionally, students are forced to delay graduation from medical school by a year at minimum and continue to accrue interest on medical school loans during this time. The financial burdens of completing an RF may exclude students of lower socioeconomic status and contribute to a decrease in diversity within the field. Dermatology has been found to be the second least diverse specialty, behind orthopedics.⁶ Soliman et al⁷ found that racial minorities and low-income students were more likely to cite socioeconomic barriers as factors involved in their decision not to pursue a career in dermatology. This notion was supported by Rinderknecht et al,⁸ who found that Black and Latinx dermatology applicants were more likely to come from disadvantaged backgrounds, and Black applicants were more likely to indicate financial concerns as their primary reason for not pursuing an RF. The impact of accumulated student debt and decreased access should be carefully weighed against the potential benefits of an RF. However, as the USMLE transitions their Step 1 score reporting from numerical to a pass/fail system, it also is possible that dermatology programs will place more emphasis on research productivity when evaluating applications for residency. Overall, the decision to recommend an RF represents an extremely complex topic, as indicated by the results of this study.

Limitations—Our survey-based study is limited by response rate and response bias. Despite the large number of responses, the overall response rate cannot be determined because it is unknown how many total faculty members actually received the survey. Moreover, data collected from current dermatology residents who have completed RFs vs those who have not as they pertain to resident performance and preparedness for the rigors of a dermatology residency would be useful.

Melasma is a complex, long-lasting, acquired dermatologic pigmentation disorder resulting in grey-brown patches that last for more than 3 months. Sun-exposed areas including the nose, cheeks, forehead, and forearms are most likely to be affected.¹ In Southeast Asia, 0.25% to 4% of the population affected by melasma is aged 30 to 40 years.² In particular, melasma is a concern among pregnant women due to increased levels of melanocyte-stimulating hormones (MSHs) and is impacted by genetics, hormonal influence, and exposure to UV light.^3,4 In Pakistan, approximately 46% of women are affected by melasma during pregnancy.^2,5 Although few studies have focused on the clinical approaches to melasma in darker skin types, it continues to disproportionately affect the skin of color population.⁴

The areas of hyperpigmentation seen in melasma exhibit increased deposition of melanin in the epidermis and dermis, but melanocytes are not elevated. However, in areas of hyperpigmentation, the melanocytes are larger and more dendritic and demonstrate an increased level of melanogenesis.⁶ During pregnancy, especially in the third trimester, elevated levels of estrogen, progesterone, and MSH often are found in association with melasma.⁷ Tyrosinase (TYR) activity increases and cellular proliferation is reduced after treatment of melanocytes in culture with β-estradiol.⁸ Sex steroids increase transcription of genes encoding melanogenic enzymes in normal human melanocytes, especially TYR.⁹ These results are consistent with the notable increases in melanin synthesis and TYR activity reported for normal human melanocytes under similar conditions in culture.¹⁰ Because melanocytes contain both cytosolic and nuclear estrogen receptors, melanocytes in patients with melasma may be inherently more sensitive to the stimulatory effects of estrogens and possibly other steroid hormones.¹¹

The current treatment options for melasma have varying levels of success and include topical depigmenting agents such as hydroquinone, tretinoin, azelaic acid, kojic acid, and corticosteroids; dermabrasion; and chemical peels.^12-14 Chemical peels with glycolic acid, salicylic acid, lactic acid, trichloroacetic acid, and phenol, as well as laser therapy, are reliable management options.^13,14 Traditionally, melasma has been treated with a combination of modalities along with photoprotection and trigger avoidance.¹²

The efficacy and safety of the available therapies for melasma are still controversial and require further exploration. In recent years, off-label tranexamic acid (TA) has emerged as a potential therapy for melasma. Although the mechanism of action remains unclear, TA may inhibit melanin synthesis by blocking the interaction between melanocytes and keratinocytes.¹⁵ Tranexamic acid also may reverse the abnormal dermal changes associated with melasma by inhibiting melanogenesis and angiogenesis.¹⁶

Although various therapeutic options exist for melasma, the search for a reliable option in patients with darker skin types continues.¹³ We sought to evaluate the efficacy of TA solution 5% in reducing the severity of melasma in South Asian patients, thereby improving patient outcomes and maximizing patient satisfaction. Topical TA is inexpensive and readily accessible and does not cause systemic side effects. These qualities make it a promising treatment compared to traditional therapies.

Methods

We conducted a randomized controlled trial at Rawalpindi Medical Institute (Punjab, Pakistan). The researchers obtained informed consent for all enrolled patients. Cases were sampled from the original patient population seen at the office using nonprobability consecutive sampling. The sample size was calculated with a 95% CI, margin of error of 9%, and expected percentage of efficacy of 86.1% by using TA solution 5%. South Asian male and female patients aged 20 to 45 years with melasma were included in the analysis. Patients were excluded if they were already taking TA, oral contraceptive pills, or photosensitizing drugs (eg, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, tetracyclines, phenytoin, carbamazepine); were pregnant; had chronic kidney disease (creatinine >2.0 mg/dL); had cardiac abnormalities (abnormal electrocardiogram); had hematologic disorders (international normalized ratio >2); or had received another melasma treatment within the last 3 to 6 months.

All enrolled patients underwent a detailed history and physical examination. Patient demographics were subsequently noted, including age, sex, history of diabetes mellitus or hypertension, and duration of melasma. The melasma area and severity index (MASI) score of each patient was calculated at baseline, and a corresponding photograph was taken.

The topical solution was prepared with 5 g of TA dissolved in 10 cc of ethanol at 96 °F, 10 cc of 1,3-butanediol, and distilled water up to 100 cc. The TA solution was applied to the affected areas once daily by the patient for 12 weeks. Each application covered the affected areas completely. Patients were instructed to apply sunscreen with sun protection factor 60 to those same areas for UV protection after 15 minutes of TA application. Biweekly follow-ups were scheduled during the trial, and the MASI score was recorded at these visits. If the mean MASI score was reduced by half after 12 weeks of treatment, then the treatment was considered efficacious with a 95% CI.

The percentage reduction from baseline was calculated as follows: percentage reduction=(baseline score– follow-up score)/baseline score×100.

Statistical Analysis—Data were analyzed in SPSS Statistics 25 (IBM). The quantitative variables of age, duration of melasma, and body mass index were presented as mean (SD). Qualitative variables such as sex, history of diabetes mellitus or hypertension, site of melasma, and efficacy were presented as frequencies and percentages. Mean MASI scores at baseline and 12 weeks posttreatment were compared using a paired t test (P≤.05). Data were stratified for age, sex, history of diabetes mellitus or hypertension, site of melasma, and duration of melasma, and a χ² test was applied to compare efficacy in stratified groups (P≤.05).

Results

Sixty patients were enrolled in the study. Of them, 17 (28.33%) were male, and 43 (71.67%) were female (2:5 ratio). They ranged in age from 20 to 45 years (mean [SD], 31.93 [6.26] years). Thirty-seven patients (61.67%) were aged 31 to 45 years of age (Table 1). The mean (SD) duration of disease was 10.18 (2.10) months. The response to TA was recorded based on patient distribution according to the site of melasma as well as history of diabetes mellitus and hypertension.

Topical TA was found to be efficacious for melasma in 50 (83.33%) patients. The mean (SD) baseline and week 12 MASI scores were 23.15 (5.02) and 12.71 (4.10)(P<.0001), respectively (Table 2). The stratification of efficacy with respect to age, sex, duration of melasma, site of melasma, and history of diabetes mellitus or hypertension is shown in the eTable. The site of melasma was significant with respect to stratification of efficacy. On the forehead, TA was found to be efficacious in 11 patients and nonefficacious in 0 patients (P=.036). In the malar region, it was efficacious in 16 patients and nonefficacious in 1 patient (P=.036). Finally, on the chin, it was efficacious in 23 patients and nonefficacious in 9 patients (P=.036).

Comment

Melasma Presentation and Development—Melasma is a chronic skin condition that more often affects patients with darker skin types. This condition is characterized by hyperpigmentation of skin that is directly exposed to the sun, such as the cheek, nose, forehead, and above the upper lip.¹⁷ Although the mechanism behind how melasma develops is unknown, one theory suggests that UV light can lead to increased plasmin in keratinocytes.¹⁸ This increased plasmin will thereby increase the arachidonic acid and α-MSH, leading to the observed uneven hyperpigmentation that is notable in melasma. Melasma is common in patients using oral contraceptives or expired cosmetic drugs; in those who are pregnant; and in those with liver dysfunction.¹⁸ Melasma has a negative impact on patients’ quality of life because of substantial psychological and social distress. Thus, finding an accessible treatment is imperative.¹⁹

Melasma Management—The most common treatments for melasma have been topical bleaching agents and photoprotection. Combination therapy options include chemical peels, dermabrasion, and laser treatments, though they present with limited efficacy.^17,20 Because melasma focuses on pigmentation correction, topical treatments work to disturb melanocyte pigment production at the enzymatic level.²¹ Tyrosinase is rate limiting in melanin production, as it converts L-tyrosinase to L-3,4-dihydroxyphenylalanine, using copper to interact with L-3,4-dihydroxyphenylalanine as a cofactor in the active site.²² Therefore, tyrosine is a major target for many drugs that have been developed for melasma to decrease melaninization.²¹

Recently, research has focused on the effects of topical, intradermal, and oral TA for melasma.¹⁷ Tranexamic acid most commonly has been used in medicine as a fibrinolytic agent because of its antiplasmin properties. It has been hypothesized that TA can inhibit the release of paracrine melanogenic factors that normally act to stimulate melanocytes.¹⁷ Although studies have supported the safety and efficacy of TA, there remains a lack of clinical studies that are sufficiently powered. No definitive consensus on the use of TA for melasma currently exists, which indicates the need for large-scale, randomized, controlled trials.²³

One trial (N=25) found that TA solution 5% achieved efficacy (>50% reduction in MASI score from baseline) in 86.1% of patients with melasma.²⁴ In another study (N=18), topical TA 5% achieved efficacy (>50% reduction in MASI score) in 86% of patients with melasma.²⁵

Melasma Comorbidities—To determine if certain comorbidities, such as diabetes mellitus or hypertension, influenced the progression of melasma, we stratified the efficacy results for patients with these 2 comorbidities, which showed no significant difference (P=.794 and P=.101, respectively). Thus, the relatively higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus (16 patients) and hypertension (11 patients) did not contribute to the efficacy of TA in lowering MASI scores over the 12-week period, which supports the findings of Doolan and Gupta,²⁶ who investigated the endocrinologic conditions associated with melasma and found no such association with diabetes mellitus or hypertension.

TA Formulations for Melasma—The efficacy of topical TA has been explored in several studies. Six studies with sample sizes of 13 to 50 patients each showed statistically significant differences in MASI scores between baseline and following TA treatment (P<.001).^27-32 Several formulations and regimens were utilized, including TA cream 3% for 12 weeks, TA gel 5% for 12 weeks, TA solution 3% for 12 weeks, TA liposome 5% for 12 weeks, and TA solution 2% for 12 weeks.¹⁸ Additionally, these studies found TA to be effective in limiting dyschromia and decreasing MASI scores. There were no statistically significant differences between formulations and method of application. Topical TA has been found to be just as effective as other treatments for melasma, including intradermal TA injections, topical hydroquinone, and a combination of topical hydroquinone and dexamethasone.¹⁸

Further study of the efficacy of intradermal TA is necessary because many human trials have lacked statistical significance or a control group. Lee et al³² conducted a trial of 100 female patients who received weekly intradermal TA microinjections for 12 weeks. After 8 and 12 weeks, MASI scores decreased significantly (P<.01).³² Similarly, Badran et al³³ observed 60 female patients in 3 trial groups: group A received TA (4 mg/mL) intradermal injections every 2 weeks, group B received TA (10 mg/mL) intradermal injections every 2 weeks, and group C received TA cream 10% twice daily. Although all groups showed improvement in MASI, group B, which had the highest intradermal TA concentration, exhibited the most improvement. Thus, it was determined that intradermal application led to better results, but the cream was still effective.³³

Saki et al³⁴ conducted a randomized, split-face trial of 37 patients comparing the efficacy of intradermal TA and topical hydroquinone. Each group was treated with either monthly intradermal TA injections or nightly hydroquinone for 3 months. After 4 weeks of treatment, TA initially had a greater improvement. However, after 20 weeks, the overall changes were not significant between the 2 groups.³⁴ Pazyar et al³⁵ conducted a randomized, split-face trial of 49 patients comparing the efficacy of intradermal TA and hydroquinone cream. After 24 weeks of biweekly TA injections or twice-daily hydroquinone, there were no statistically significant differences in the decreased MASI scores between treatments.³⁵ Additional large, double-blind, controlled trials are needed to thoroughly assess the role of intradermal TA in comparison to its treatment counterpart of hydroquinone.

Ebrahimi and Naeini²⁹ conducted a 12-week, double-blind, split-phase trial of 50 Iranian melasma patients, which showed that 27.3% of patients rated the improvement in melasma as excellent, 42.4% as good, and 30.3% as fair after using TA solution 3%. Wu et al³⁶ also showed a total melasma improvement rate of 80.9% in 256 patients with long-term oral use of TA. In a study by Kim et al³¹ (N=245), the mean MASI score considerably decreased after topical TA use, with a total response rate of 95.6%. In another study, Atefi et al³⁷ presented significantly increased levels of satisfaction in patients treated with topical TA 5% vs hydroquinone (P=.015).

Melasma in Patients With Darker Skin Types—Special attention must be given to choosing the appropriate medication in melasma patients with darker skin types, as there is an increased risk for postinflammatory hyperpigmentation. Currently, few randomized controlled trials exist that fulfill the criteria of evaluating pharmacologic options for patients with melasma, and even fewer studies solely focus on patients with darker skin types.³⁸ In addition to treatment advances, patients must be educated on the need to avoid sun exposure when possible or to use photoprotection, especially in the South Asian region, where these practices rarely are taught. Our study provided a unique analysis regarding the efficacy of TA solution 5% for the treatment of melasma in patients of South Asian descent. Clinicians can use these findings as a foundation for treating all patients with melasma but particularly those with darker skin types.

Study Limitations—Our study consisted of 60 patients; although our study had more patients than similar trials, larger studies are needed. Additionally, other variables were excluded from our analysis, such as comorbidities beyond diabetes mellitus and hypertension.

Conclusion

This study contributes to the growing field of melasma therapeutics by evaluating the efficacy of using TA solution 5% for the treatment of melasma in South Asian patients with darker skin types. Clinicians may use our study to broaden their treatment options for a common condition while also addressing the lack of clinical options for patients with darker skin types. Further studies investigating the effectiveness of TA in large clinical trials in humans are warranted to understand the efficacy and the risk for any complications.

Melasma is a complex, long-lasting, acquired dermatologic pigmentation disorder resulting in grey-brown patches that last for more than 3 months. Sun-exposed areas including the nose, cheeks, forehead, and forearms are most likely to be affected.¹ In Southeast Asia, 0.25% to 4% of the population affected by melasma is aged 30 to 40 years.² In particular, melasma is a concern among pregnant women due to increased levels of melanocyte-stimulating hormones (MSHs) and is impacted by genetics, hormonal influence, and exposure to UV light.^3,4 In Pakistan, approximately 46% of women are affected by melasma during pregnancy.^2,5 Although few studies have focused on the clinical approaches to melasma in darker skin types, it continues to disproportionately affect the skin of color population.⁴

The areas of hyperpigmentation seen in melasma exhibit increased deposition of melanin in the epidermis and dermis, but melanocytes are not elevated. However, in areas of hyperpigmentation, the melanocytes are larger and more dendritic and demonstrate an increased level of melanogenesis.⁶ During pregnancy, especially in the third trimester, elevated levels of estrogen, progesterone, and MSH often are found in association with melasma.⁷ Tyrosinase (TYR) activity increases and cellular proliferation is reduced after treatment of melanocytes in culture with β-estradiol.⁸ Sex steroids increase transcription of genes encoding melanogenic enzymes in normal human melanocytes, especially TYR.⁹ These results are consistent with the notable increases in melanin synthesis and TYR activity reported for normal human melanocytes under similar conditions in culture.¹⁰ Because melanocytes contain both cytosolic and nuclear estrogen receptors, melanocytes in patients with melasma may be inherently more sensitive to the stimulatory effects of estrogens and possibly other steroid hormones.¹¹

The current treatment options for melasma have varying levels of success and include topical depigmenting agents such as hydroquinone, tretinoin, azelaic acid, kojic acid, and corticosteroids; dermabrasion; and chemical peels.^12-14 Chemical peels with glycolic acid, salicylic acid, lactic acid, trichloroacetic acid, and phenol, as well as laser therapy, are reliable management options.^13,14 Traditionally, melasma has been treated with a combination of modalities along with photoprotection and trigger avoidance.¹²

The efficacy and safety of the available therapies for melasma are still controversial and require further exploration. In recent years, off-label tranexamic acid (TA) has emerged as a potential therapy for melasma. Although the mechanism of action remains unclear, TA may inhibit melanin synthesis by blocking the interaction between melanocytes and keratinocytes.¹⁵ Tranexamic acid also may reverse the abnormal dermal changes associated with melasma by inhibiting melanogenesis and angiogenesis.¹⁶

Although various therapeutic options exist for melasma, the search for a reliable option in patients with darker skin types continues.¹³ We sought to evaluate the efficacy of TA solution 5% in reducing the severity of melasma in South Asian patients, thereby improving patient outcomes and maximizing patient satisfaction. Topical TA is inexpensive and readily accessible and does not cause systemic side effects. These qualities make it a promising treatment compared to traditional therapies.

Methods

We conducted a randomized controlled trial at Rawalpindi Medical Institute (Punjab, Pakistan). The researchers obtained informed consent for all enrolled patients. Cases were sampled from the original patient population seen at the office using nonprobability consecutive sampling. The sample size was calculated with a 95% CI, margin of error of 9%, and expected percentage of efficacy of 86.1% by using TA solution 5%. South Asian male and female patients aged 20 to 45 years with melasma were included in the analysis. Patients were excluded if they were already taking TA, oral contraceptive pills, or photosensitizing drugs (eg, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, tetracyclines, phenytoin, carbamazepine); were pregnant; had chronic kidney disease (creatinine >2.0 mg/dL); had cardiac abnormalities (abnormal electrocardiogram); had hematologic disorders (international normalized ratio >2); or had received another melasma treatment within the last 3 to 6 months.

All enrolled patients underwent a detailed history and physical examination. Patient demographics were subsequently noted, including age, sex, history of diabetes mellitus or hypertension, and duration of melasma. The melasma area and severity index (MASI) score of each patient was calculated at baseline, and a corresponding photograph was taken.

The topical solution was prepared with 5 g of TA dissolved in 10 cc of ethanol at 96 °F, 10 cc of 1,3-butanediol, and distilled water up to 100 cc. The TA solution was applied to the affected areas once daily by the patient for 12 weeks. Each application covered the affected areas completely. Patients were instructed to apply sunscreen with sun protection factor 60 to those same areas for UV protection after 15 minutes of TA application. Biweekly follow-ups were scheduled during the trial, and the MASI score was recorded at these visits. If the mean MASI score was reduced by half after 12 weeks of treatment, then the treatment was considered efficacious with a 95% CI.

The percentage reduction from baseline was calculated as follows: percentage reduction=(baseline score– follow-up score)/baseline score×100.

Statistical Analysis—Data were analyzed in SPSS Statistics 25 (IBM). The quantitative variables of age, duration of melasma, and body mass index were presented as mean (SD). Qualitative variables such as sex, history of diabetes mellitus or hypertension, site of melasma, and efficacy were presented as frequencies and percentages. Mean MASI scores at baseline and 12 weeks posttreatment were compared using a paired t test (P≤.05). Data were stratified for age, sex, history of diabetes mellitus or hypertension, site of melasma, and duration of melasma, and a χ² test was applied to compare efficacy in stratified groups (P≤.05).

Results

Sixty patients were enrolled in the study. Of them, 17 (28.33%) were male, and 43 (71.67%) were female (2:5 ratio). They ranged in age from 20 to 45 years (mean [SD], 31.93 [6.26] years). Thirty-seven patients (61.67%) were aged 31 to 45 years of age (Table 1). The mean (SD) duration of disease was 10.18 (2.10) months. The response to TA was recorded based on patient distribution according to the site of melasma as well as history of diabetes mellitus and hypertension.

Topical TA was found to be efficacious for melasma in 50 (83.33%) patients. The mean (SD) baseline and week 12 MASI scores were 23.15 (5.02) and 12.71 (4.10)(P<.0001), respectively (Table 2). The stratification of efficacy with respect to age, sex, duration of melasma, site of melasma, and history of diabetes mellitus or hypertension is shown in the eTable. The site of melasma was significant with respect to stratification of efficacy. On the forehead, TA was found to be efficacious in 11 patients and nonefficacious in 0 patients (P=.036). In the malar region, it was efficacious in 16 patients and nonefficacious in 1 patient (P=.036). Finally, on the chin, it was efficacious in 23 patients and nonefficacious in 9 patients (P=.036).

Comment

Melasma Presentation and Development—Melasma is a chronic skin condition that more often affects patients with darker skin types. This condition is characterized by hyperpigmentation of skin that is directly exposed to the sun, such as the cheek, nose, forehead, and above the upper lip.¹⁷ Although the mechanism behind how melasma develops is unknown, one theory suggests that UV light can lead to increased plasmin in keratinocytes.¹⁸ This increased plasmin will thereby increase the arachidonic acid and α-MSH, leading to the observed uneven hyperpigmentation that is notable in melasma. Melasma is common in patients using oral contraceptives or expired cosmetic drugs; in those who are pregnant; and in those with liver dysfunction.¹⁸ Melasma has a negative impact on patients’ quality of life because of substantial psychological and social distress. Thus, finding an accessible treatment is imperative.¹⁹

Melasma Management—The most common treatments for melasma have been topical bleaching agents and photoprotection. Combination therapy options include chemical peels, dermabrasion, and laser treatments, though they present with limited efficacy.^17,20 Because melasma focuses on pigmentation correction, topical treatments work to disturb melanocyte pigment production at the enzymatic level.²¹ Tyrosinase is rate limiting in melanin production, as it converts L-tyrosinase to L-3,4-dihydroxyphenylalanine, using copper to interact with L-3,4-dihydroxyphenylalanine as a cofactor in the active site.²² Therefore, tyrosine is a major target for many drugs that have been developed for melasma to decrease melaninization.²¹

Recently, research has focused on the effects of topical, intradermal, and oral TA for melasma.¹⁷ Tranexamic acid most commonly has been used in medicine as a fibrinolytic agent because of its antiplasmin properties. It has been hypothesized that TA can inhibit the release of paracrine melanogenic factors that normally act to stimulate melanocytes.¹⁷ Although studies have supported the safety and efficacy of TA, there remains a lack of clinical studies that are sufficiently powered. No definitive consensus on the use of TA for melasma currently exists, which indicates the need for large-scale, randomized, controlled trials.²³

One trial (N=25) found that TA solution 5% achieved efficacy (>50% reduction in MASI score from baseline) in 86.1% of patients with melasma.²⁴ In another study (N=18), topical TA 5% achieved efficacy (>50% reduction in MASI score) in 86% of patients with melasma.²⁵

Melasma Comorbidities—To determine if certain comorbidities, such as diabetes mellitus or hypertension, influenced the progression of melasma, we stratified the efficacy results for patients with these 2 comorbidities, which showed no significant difference (P=.794 and P=.101, respectively). Thus, the relatively higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus (16 patients) and hypertension (11 patients) did not contribute to the efficacy of TA in lowering MASI scores over the 12-week period, which supports the findings of Doolan and Gupta,²⁶ who investigated the endocrinologic conditions associated with melasma and found no such association with diabetes mellitus or hypertension.

TA Formulations for Melasma—The efficacy of topical TA has been explored in several studies. Six studies with sample sizes of 13 to 50 patients each showed statistically significant differences in MASI scores between baseline and following TA treatment (P<.001).^27-32 Several formulations and regimens were utilized, including TA cream 3% for 12 weeks, TA gel 5% for 12 weeks, TA solution 3% for 12 weeks, TA liposome 5% for 12 weeks, and TA solution 2% for 12 weeks.¹⁸ Additionally, these studies found TA to be effective in limiting dyschromia and decreasing MASI scores. There were no statistically significant differences between formulations and method of application. Topical TA has been found to be just as effective as other treatments for melasma, including intradermal TA injections, topical hydroquinone, and a combination of topical hydroquinone and dexamethasone.¹⁸

Further study of the efficacy of intradermal TA is necessary because many human trials have lacked statistical significance or a control group. Lee et al³² conducted a trial of 100 female patients who received weekly intradermal TA microinjections for 12 weeks. After 8 and 12 weeks, MASI scores decreased significantly (P<.01).³² Similarly, Badran et al³³ observed 60 female patients in 3 trial groups: group A received TA (4 mg/mL) intradermal injections every 2 weeks, group B received TA (10 mg/mL) intradermal injections every 2 weeks, and group C received TA cream 10% twice daily. Although all groups showed improvement in MASI, group B, which had the highest intradermal TA concentration, exhibited the most improvement. Thus, it was determined that intradermal application led to better results, but the cream was still effective.³³

Saki et al³⁴ conducted a randomized, split-face trial of 37 patients comparing the efficacy of intradermal TA and topical hydroquinone. Each group was treated with either monthly intradermal TA injections or nightly hydroquinone for 3 months. After 4 weeks of treatment, TA initially had a greater improvement. However, after 20 weeks, the overall changes were not significant between the 2 groups.³⁴ Pazyar et al³⁵ conducted a randomized, split-face trial of 49 patients comparing the efficacy of intradermal TA and hydroquinone cream. After 24 weeks of biweekly TA injections or twice-daily hydroquinone, there were no statistically significant differences in the decreased MASI scores between treatments.³⁵ Additional large, double-blind, controlled trials are needed to thoroughly assess the role of intradermal TA in comparison to its treatment counterpart of hydroquinone.

Ebrahimi and Naeini²⁹ conducted a 12-week, double-blind, split-phase trial of 50 Iranian melasma patients, which showed that 27.3% of patients rated the improvement in melasma as excellent, 42.4% as good, and 30.3% as fair after using TA solution 3%. Wu et al³⁶ also showed a total melasma improvement rate of 80.9% in 256 patients with long-term oral use of TA. In a study by Kim et al³¹ (N=245), the mean MASI score considerably decreased after topical TA use, with a total response rate of 95.6%. In another study, Atefi et al³⁷ presented significantly increased levels of satisfaction in patients treated with topical TA 5% vs hydroquinone (P=.015).

Melasma in Patients With Darker Skin Types—Special attention must be given to choosing the appropriate medication in melasma patients with darker skin types, as there is an increased risk for postinflammatory hyperpigmentation. Currently, few randomized controlled trials exist that fulfill the criteria of evaluating pharmacologic options for patients with melasma, and even fewer studies solely focus on patients with darker skin types.³⁸ In addition to treatment advances, patients must be educated on the need to avoid sun exposure when possible or to use photoprotection, especially in the South Asian region, where these practices rarely are taught. Our study provided a unique analysis regarding the efficacy of TA solution 5% for the treatment of melasma in patients of South Asian descent. Clinicians can use these findings as a foundation for treating all patients with melasma but particularly those with darker skin types.

Study Limitations—Our study consisted of 60 patients; although our study had more patients than similar trials, larger studies are needed. Additionally, other variables were excluded from our analysis, such as comorbidities beyond diabetes mellitus and hypertension.

Conclusion

This study contributes to the growing field of melasma therapeutics by evaluating the efficacy of using TA solution 5% for the treatment of melasma in South Asian patients with darker skin types. Clinicians may use our study to broaden their treatment options for a common condition while also addressing the lack of clinical options for patients with darker skin types. Further studies investigating the effectiveness of TA in large clinical trials in humans are warranted to understand the efficacy and the risk for any complications.

Melasma is a complex, long-lasting, acquired dermatologic pigmentation disorder resulting in grey-brown patches that last for more than 3 months. Sun-exposed areas including the nose, cheeks, forehead, and forearms are most likely to be affected.¹ In Southeast Asia, 0.25% to 4% of the population affected by melasma is aged 30 to 40 years.² In particular, melasma is a concern among pregnant women due to increased levels of melanocyte-stimulating hormones (MSHs) and is impacted by genetics, hormonal influence, and exposure to UV light.^3,4 In Pakistan, approximately 46% of women are affected by melasma during pregnancy.^2,5 Although few studies have focused on the clinical approaches to melasma in darker skin types, it continues to disproportionately affect the skin of color population.⁴

The areas of hyperpigmentation seen in melasma exhibit increased deposition of melanin in the epidermis and dermis, but melanocytes are not elevated. However, in areas of hyperpigmentation, the melanocytes are larger and more dendritic and demonstrate an increased level of melanogenesis.⁶ During pregnancy, especially in the third trimester, elevated levels of estrogen, progesterone, and MSH often are found in association with melasma.⁷ Tyrosinase (TYR) activity increases and cellular proliferation is reduced after treatment of melanocytes in culture with β-estradiol.⁸ Sex steroids increase transcription of genes encoding melanogenic enzymes in normal human melanocytes, especially TYR.⁹ These results are consistent with the notable increases in melanin synthesis and TYR activity reported for normal human melanocytes under similar conditions in culture.¹⁰ Because melanocytes contain both cytosolic and nuclear estrogen receptors, melanocytes in patients with melasma may be inherently more sensitive to the stimulatory effects of estrogens and possibly other steroid hormones.¹¹

The current treatment options for melasma have varying levels of success and include topical depigmenting agents such as hydroquinone, tretinoin, azelaic acid, kojic acid, and corticosteroids; dermabrasion; and chemical peels.^12-14 Chemical peels with glycolic acid, salicylic acid, lactic acid, trichloroacetic acid, and phenol, as well as laser therapy, are reliable management options.^13,14 Traditionally, melasma has been treated with a combination of modalities along with photoprotection and trigger avoidance.¹²

The efficacy and safety of the available therapies for melasma are still controversial and require further exploration. In recent years, off-label tranexamic acid (TA) has emerged as a potential therapy for melasma. Although the mechanism of action remains unclear, TA may inhibit melanin synthesis by blocking the interaction between melanocytes and keratinocytes.¹⁵ Tranexamic acid also may reverse the abnormal dermal changes associated with melasma by inhibiting melanogenesis and angiogenesis.¹⁶

Although various therapeutic options exist for melasma, the search for a reliable option in patients with darker skin types continues.¹³ We sought to evaluate the efficacy of TA solution 5% in reducing the severity of melasma in South Asian patients, thereby improving patient outcomes and maximizing patient satisfaction. Topical TA is inexpensive and readily accessible and does not cause systemic side effects. These qualities make it a promising treatment compared to traditional therapies.

Methods

We conducted a randomized controlled trial at Rawalpindi Medical Institute (Punjab, Pakistan). The researchers obtained informed consent for all enrolled patients. Cases were sampled from the original patient population seen at the office using nonprobability consecutive sampling. The sample size was calculated with a 95% CI, margin of error of 9%, and expected percentage of efficacy of 86.1% by using TA solution 5%. South Asian male and female patients aged 20 to 45 years with melasma were included in the analysis. Patients were excluded if they were already taking TA, oral contraceptive pills, or photosensitizing drugs (eg, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, tetracyclines, phenytoin, carbamazepine); were pregnant; had chronic kidney disease (creatinine >2.0 mg/dL); had cardiac abnormalities (abnormal electrocardiogram); had hematologic disorders (international normalized ratio >2); or had received another melasma treatment within the last 3 to 6 months.

All enrolled patients underwent a detailed history and physical examination. Patient demographics were subsequently noted, including age, sex, history of diabetes mellitus or hypertension, and duration of melasma. The melasma area and severity index (MASI) score of each patient was calculated at baseline, and a corresponding photograph was taken.

The topical solution was prepared with 5 g of TA dissolved in 10 cc of ethanol at 96 °F, 10 cc of 1,3-butanediol, and distilled water up to 100 cc. The TA solution was applied to the affected areas once daily by the patient for 12 weeks. Each application covered the affected areas completely. Patients were instructed to apply sunscreen with sun protection factor 60 to those same areas for UV protection after 15 minutes of TA application. Biweekly follow-ups were scheduled during the trial, and the MASI score was recorded at these visits. If the mean MASI score was reduced by half after 12 weeks of treatment, then the treatment was considered efficacious with a 95% CI.

The percentage reduction from baseline was calculated as follows: percentage reduction=(baseline score– follow-up score)/baseline score×100.

Statistical Analysis—Data were analyzed in SPSS Statistics 25 (IBM). The quantitative variables of age, duration of melasma, and body mass index were presented as mean (SD). Qualitative variables such as sex, history of diabetes mellitus or hypertension, site of melasma, and efficacy were presented as frequencies and percentages. Mean MASI scores at baseline and 12 weeks posttreatment were compared using a paired t test (P≤.05). Data were stratified for age, sex, history of diabetes mellitus or hypertension, site of melasma, and duration of melasma, and a χ² test was applied to compare efficacy in stratified groups (P≤.05).

Results

Sixty patients were enrolled in the study. Of them, 17 (28.33%) were male, and 43 (71.67%) were female (2:5 ratio). They ranged in age from 20 to 45 years (mean [SD], 31.93 [6.26] years). Thirty-seven patients (61.67%) were aged 31 to 45 years of age (Table 1). The mean (SD) duration of disease was 10.18 (2.10) months. The response to TA was recorded based on patient distribution according to the site of melasma as well as history of diabetes mellitus and hypertension.

Topical TA was found to be efficacious for melasma in 50 (83.33%) patients. The mean (SD) baseline and week 12 MASI scores were 23.15 (5.02) and 12.71 (4.10)(P<.0001), respectively (Table 2). The stratification of efficacy with respect to age, sex, duration of melasma, site of melasma, and history of diabetes mellitus or hypertension is shown in the eTable. The site of melasma was significant with respect to stratification of efficacy. On the forehead, TA was found to be efficacious in 11 patients and nonefficacious in 0 patients (P=.036). In the malar region, it was efficacious in 16 patients and nonefficacious in 1 patient (P=.036). Finally, on the chin, it was efficacious in 23 patients and nonefficacious in 9 patients (P=.036).

Comment

Melasma Presentation and Development—Melasma is a chronic skin condition that more often affects patients with darker skin types. This condition is characterized by hyperpigmentation of skin that is directly exposed to the sun, such as the cheek, nose, forehead, and above the upper lip.¹⁷ Although the mechanism behind how melasma develops is unknown, one theory suggests that UV light can lead to increased plasmin in keratinocytes.¹⁸ This increased plasmin will thereby increase the arachidonic acid and α-MSH, leading to the observed uneven hyperpigmentation that is notable in melasma. Melasma is common in patients using oral contraceptives or expired cosmetic drugs; in those who are pregnant; and in those with liver dysfunction.¹⁸ Melasma has a negative impact on patients’ quality of life because of substantial psychological and social distress. Thus, finding an accessible treatment is imperative.¹⁹

Melasma Management—The most common treatments for melasma have been topical bleaching agents and photoprotection. Combination therapy options include chemical peels, dermabrasion, and laser treatments, though they present with limited efficacy.^17,20 Because melasma focuses on pigmentation correction, topical treatments work to disturb melanocyte pigment production at the enzymatic level.²¹ Tyrosinase is rate limiting in melanin production, as it converts L-tyrosinase to L-3,4-dihydroxyphenylalanine, using copper to interact with L-3,4-dihydroxyphenylalanine as a cofactor in the active site.²² Therefore, tyrosine is a major target for many drugs that have been developed for melasma to decrease melaninization.²¹

Recently, research has focused on the effects of topical, intradermal, and oral TA for melasma.¹⁷ Tranexamic acid most commonly has been used in medicine as a fibrinolytic agent because of its antiplasmin properties. It has been hypothesized that TA can inhibit the release of paracrine melanogenic factors that normally act to stimulate melanocytes.¹⁷ Although studies have supported the safety and efficacy of TA, there remains a lack of clinical studies that are sufficiently powered. No definitive consensus on the use of TA for melasma currently exists, which indicates the need for large-scale, randomized, controlled trials.²³

One trial (N=25) found that TA solution 5% achieved efficacy (>50% reduction in MASI score from baseline) in 86.1% of patients with melasma.²⁴ In another study (N=18), topical TA 5% achieved efficacy (>50% reduction in MASI score) in 86% of patients with melasma.²⁵

Melasma Comorbidities—To determine if certain comorbidities, such as diabetes mellitus or hypertension, influenced the progression of melasma, we stratified the efficacy results for patients with these 2 comorbidities, which showed no significant difference (P=.794 and P=.101, respectively). Thus, the relatively higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus (16 patients) and hypertension (11 patients) did not contribute to the efficacy of TA in lowering MASI scores over the 12-week period, which supports the findings of Doolan and Gupta,²⁶ who investigated the endocrinologic conditions associated with melasma and found no such association with diabetes mellitus or hypertension.

TA Formulations for Melasma—The efficacy of topical TA has been explored in several studies. Six studies with sample sizes of 13 to 50 patients each showed statistically significant differences in MASI scores between baseline and following TA treatment (P<.001).^27-32 Several formulations and regimens were utilized, including TA cream 3% for 12 weeks, TA gel 5% for 12 weeks, TA solution 3% for 12 weeks, TA liposome 5% for 12 weeks, and TA solution 2% for 12 weeks.¹⁸ Additionally, these studies found TA to be effective in limiting dyschromia and decreasing MASI scores. There were no statistically significant differences between formulations and method of application. Topical TA has been found to be just as effective as other treatments for melasma, including intradermal TA injections, topical hydroquinone, and a combination of topical hydroquinone and dexamethasone.¹⁸

Further study of the efficacy of intradermal TA is necessary because many human trials have lacked statistical significance or a control group. Lee et al³² conducted a trial of 100 female patients who received weekly intradermal TA microinjections for 12 weeks. After 8 and 12 weeks, MASI scores decreased significantly (P<.01).³² Similarly, Badran et al³³ observed 60 female patients in 3 trial groups: group A received TA (4 mg/mL) intradermal injections every 2 weeks, group B received TA (10 mg/mL) intradermal injections every 2 weeks, and group C received TA cream 10% twice daily. Although all groups showed improvement in MASI, group B, which had the highest intradermal TA concentration, exhibited the most improvement. Thus, it was determined that intradermal application led to better results, but the cream was still effective.³³

Saki et al³⁴ conducted a randomized, split-face trial of 37 patients comparing the efficacy of intradermal TA and topical hydroquinone. Each group was treated with either monthly intradermal TA injections or nightly hydroquinone for 3 months. After 4 weeks of treatment, TA initially had a greater improvement. However, after 20 weeks, the overall changes were not significant between the 2 groups.³⁴ Pazyar et al³⁵ conducted a randomized, split-face trial of 49 patients comparing the efficacy of intradermal TA and hydroquinone cream. After 24 weeks of biweekly TA injections or twice-daily hydroquinone, there were no statistically significant differences in the decreased MASI scores between treatments.³⁵ Additional large, double-blind, controlled trials are needed to thoroughly assess the role of intradermal TA in comparison to its treatment counterpart of hydroquinone.

Ebrahimi and Naeini²⁹ conducted a 12-week, double-blind, split-phase trial of 50 Iranian melasma patients, which showed that 27.3% of patients rated the improvement in melasma as excellent, 42.4% as good, and 30.3% as fair after using TA solution 3%. Wu et al³⁶ also showed a total melasma improvement rate of 80.9% in 256 patients with long-term oral use of TA. In a study by Kim et al³¹ (N=245), the mean MASI score considerably decreased after topical TA use, with a total response rate of 95.6%. In another study, Atefi et al³⁷ presented significantly increased levels of satisfaction in patients treated with topical TA 5% vs hydroquinone (P=.015).

Melasma in Patients With Darker Skin Types—Special attention must be given to choosing the appropriate medication in melasma patients with darker skin types, as there is an increased risk for postinflammatory hyperpigmentation. Currently, few randomized controlled trials exist that fulfill the criteria of evaluating pharmacologic options for patients with melasma, and even fewer studies solely focus on patients with darker skin types.³⁸ In addition to treatment advances, patients must be educated on the need to avoid sun exposure when possible or to use photoprotection, especially in the South Asian region, where these practices rarely are taught. Our study provided a unique analysis regarding the efficacy of TA solution 5% for the treatment of melasma in patients of South Asian descent. Clinicians can use these findings as a foundation for treating all patients with melasma but particularly those with darker skin types.

Study Limitations—Our study consisted of 60 patients; although our study had more patients than similar trials, larger studies are needed. Additionally, other variables were excluded from our analysis, such as comorbidities beyond diabetes mellitus and hypertension.

Conclusion

This study contributes to the growing field of melasma therapeutics by evaluating the efficacy of using TA solution 5% for the treatment of melasma in South Asian patients with darker skin types. Clinicians may use our study to broaden their treatment options for a common condition while also addressing the lack of clinical options for patients with darker skin types. Further studies investigating the effectiveness of TA in large clinical trials in humans are warranted to understand the efficacy and the risk for any complications.

PHILADELPHIA – The prescribing, counseling, and use of hormone therapy (HT) to treat menopausal symptoms is substantially more common among white women than among Black women, according to a review of published studies presented at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly The North American Menopause Society).

“Gaps in treatment can be used to inform health care providers about menopausal HT prescribing disparities, with the goal of improving equitable and advanced patient care among disadvantaged populations,” wrote Danette Conklin, PhD, an assistant professor of psychiatry and reproductive biology at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and a psychologist at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center; Sally MacPhedran, MD, an associate professor of reproductive biology at Case Western Reserve University and an ob.gyn at MetroHealth Medical Center, also in Cleveland; and their colleagues.

The researchers combed through PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and PsychInfo databases to identify all studies conducted in the United States since 1940 that contained data on patient demographics and prescribing patterns for hormone therapy to treat menopausal symptoms. In addition to excluding men, children, teens, trans men, and women who had contraindications for HT, the investigators excluded randomized clinical trials so that prescribing patterns would not be based on protocols or RCT participatory criteria.

The researchers identified 20 studies, ranging from 1973 through 2015, including 9 national studies and the others across different U.S. regions. They then analyzed differences in HT prescribing according to age, race/ethnicity, education, income, insurance type, body mass index, and mental health, including alcohol or substance use.

Seven of the studies assessed HT use based on patient surveys, seven used medical or medication records showing an HT prescription, two studies used insurance claims to show an HT prescription, and one study surveyed patients about whether they received an HT prescription. Another four studies used surveys that asked patients whether they received HT counseling but did not indicate if the patients received a prescription.

Half of the studies showed racial disparities in HT prescribing. In all of them, Black women used or were prescribed or counseled on using HT less than white, Hispanic, or Asian women. White women had greater use, prescribing, or counseling than all other races/ethnicities except one study in which Hispanic women were prescribed vaginal estrogen more often than white women.

Six of the studies showed education disparities in which menopausal women with lower education levels used less HT or were prescribed or counseled on HT less than women with higher education.
 

Complex reasons

Monica Christmas, MD, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Chicago and director of the Menopause Program and the Center for Women’s Integrated Health, said the study’s findings were not surprising, but the reasons for the racial disparities are likely complex.

Implicit bias in providers is likely one contributing factor, with some providers not thinking of offering HT to certain patients or not expecting the patients to be interested in it. Providers may also hesitate to prescribe HT to patients with more comorbidities because of concerns about HT risks, so if Black patients have more comorbidities, that could play a role in how many are offered or counseled on HT, she said.

“Probably the biggest take home is that it is important to be asking all of our patients about their symptoms and being proactive about talking about it,” Dr. Christmas said in an interview.

At the same time, in her anecdotal experience at a previous institution, Dr. Christmas noticed that her Black patients were less receptive to using hormone therapy than her White patients even though her Black patients tended to exhibit or report greater or more severe symptoms. But there’s been a “paradigm shift” more recently, Dr. Christmas said. With awareness about menopause growing in the media and particularly on social media, and with greater awareness about racial disparities in menopausal symptoms and care – including that shown in Dr. Christmas’s work in the SWAN Study – Dr. Christmas has had more Black patients asking about HT and other treatments for their menopausal symptoms more recently.

“Just 10 years ago, I was trying to talk to people about hormones, and I’ve been giving them to people that need them for a long time, and I couldn’t,” Dr. Christmas said. “Now people are coming in, saying ‘no one’s ever talked to me about it’ or ‘I deserve this.’ It shows you the persuasion that social media and the Internet have on our thinking too, and I think that’s going to be interesting to look at, to see how that impacts people’s perception about wanting treatment.”

Dr. Conklin agreed that reasons for the disparities likely involve a combination of factors, including providers’ assumptions about different racial groups’ knowledge and receptiveness toward different treatments. One of the studies in their review also reported provider barriers to prescribing HT, which included lack of time, lack of adequate knowledge, and concern about risks to patients’ health.

“Medical providers tend to have less time with their patients compared to PhDs, and that time factor really makes a big difference in terms of what the focus is going to be in that [short] appointment,” Dr. Conklin said in an interview. “Perhaps from a provider point of view, they are prioritizing what they think is more important to their patient and not really listening deeply to what their patient is saying.”
 

Educating clinicians

Potentially supporting that possibility, Dr. Conklin and Dr. MacPhedran also had a poster at the conference that looked at prescribing of HT in both Black and White women with a diagnosis of depression, anxiety, or bipolar disorder.

“In a population with a high percentage of Black patients known to have more menopause symptoms, the data demonstrated a surprisingly low rate of documented menopause symptoms (11%) compared to prior reports of up to 80%,” the researchers reported. “This low rate may be related to patient reporting, physician inquiry, or physician documentation of menopause symptoms.” They further found that White women with menopause symptoms and one of those psychiatric diagnosis were 40% more likely to receive an HT prescription for menopausal symptoms than Black women with the same diagnoses and symptoms.

Dr. Conklin emphasized the importance of providers not overlooking women who have mental health disorders when it comes to treating menopausal symptoms, particularly since mental health conditions and menopausal symptoms can exacerbate each other.

“Their depression could worsen irritability, and anxiety can worsen during the transition, and it could be overlooked or thought of as another [psychiatric] episode,” Dr. Conklin said. Providers may need to “dig a little deeper,” especially if patients are reporting having hot flashes or brain fog.

A key way to help overcome the racial disparities – whether they result from systemic issues, implicit bias or assumptions, or patients’ own reticence – is education, Dr. Conklin said. She recommended that providers have educational material about menopause and treatments for menopausal symptoms in the waiting room and then ask patients about their symptoms and invite patients to ask questions.

Dr. MacPhedran added that education for clinicians is key as well.

“Now is a great time – menopause is hot, menopause is interesting, and it’s getting a little bit of a push in terms of research dollars,” Dr. MacPhedran said. “That will trickle down to more emphasis in medical education, whether that’s nurse practitioners, physicians, PAs, or midwives. Everybody needs more education on menopause so they can be more comfortable asking and answering these questions.”

Dr. Conklin said she would like to see expanded education on menopause for medical residents and in health psychology curricula as well.

Among the 13 studies that found disparities in prescribing patterns by age, seven studies showed that older women used or were prescribed or counseled on HT more often than younger women. Four studies found the opposite, with older women less likely to use or be prescribed or counseled about HT. One study had mixed results, and one study had expected prescribing patterns.

Five studies found income disparities and five studies found disparities by medical conditions in terms of HT use, prescribing, or counseling. Other disparities identified in smaller numbers of studies (four or fewer) included natural versus surgical menopause, insurance coverage, body mass index, geographic region, smoking and alcohol use.

The two biggest limitations of the research were its heterogeneity and the small number of studies included, which points to how scarce research on racial disparities in HT use really are, Dr. Conklin said.

The research did not use any external funding. The authors had no industry disclosures. Dr. Christmas has done an educational video for FertilityIQ.

PHILADELPHIA – The prescribing, counseling, and use of hormone therapy (HT) to treat menopausal symptoms is substantially more common among white women than among Black women, according to a review of published studies presented at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly The North American Menopause Society).

“Gaps in treatment can be used to inform health care providers about menopausal HT prescribing disparities, with the goal of improving equitable and advanced patient care among disadvantaged populations,” wrote Danette Conklin, PhD, an assistant professor of psychiatry and reproductive biology at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and a psychologist at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center; Sally MacPhedran, MD, an associate professor of reproductive biology at Case Western Reserve University and an ob.gyn at MetroHealth Medical Center, also in Cleveland; and their colleagues.

The researchers combed through PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and PsychInfo databases to identify all studies conducted in the United States since 1940 that contained data on patient demographics and prescribing patterns for hormone therapy to treat menopausal symptoms. In addition to excluding men, children, teens, trans men, and women who had contraindications for HT, the investigators excluded randomized clinical trials so that prescribing patterns would not be based on protocols or RCT participatory criteria.

The researchers identified 20 studies, ranging from 1973 through 2015, including 9 national studies and the others across different U.S. regions. They then analyzed differences in HT prescribing according to age, race/ethnicity, education, income, insurance type, body mass index, and mental health, including alcohol or substance use.

Seven of the studies assessed HT use based on patient surveys, seven used medical or medication records showing an HT prescription, two studies used insurance claims to show an HT prescription, and one study surveyed patients about whether they received an HT prescription. Another four studies used surveys that asked patients whether they received HT counseling but did not indicate if the patients received a prescription.

Half of the studies showed racial disparities in HT prescribing. In all of them, Black women used or were prescribed or counseled on using HT less than white, Hispanic, or Asian women. White women had greater use, prescribing, or counseling than all other races/ethnicities except one study in which Hispanic women were prescribed vaginal estrogen more often than white women.

Six of the studies showed education disparities in which menopausal women with lower education levels used less HT or were prescribed or counseled on HT less than women with higher education.
 

Complex reasons

Monica Christmas, MD, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Chicago and director of the Menopause Program and the Center for Women’s Integrated Health, said the study’s findings were not surprising, but the reasons for the racial disparities are likely complex.

Implicit bias in providers is likely one contributing factor, with some providers not thinking of offering HT to certain patients or not expecting the patients to be interested in it. Providers may also hesitate to prescribe HT to patients with more comorbidities because of concerns about HT risks, so if Black patients have more comorbidities, that could play a role in how many are offered or counseled on HT, she said.

“Probably the biggest take home is that it is important to be asking all of our patients about their symptoms and being proactive about talking about it,” Dr. Christmas said in an interview.

At the same time, in her anecdotal experience at a previous institution, Dr. Christmas noticed that her Black patients were less receptive to using hormone therapy than her White patients even though her Black patients tended to exhibit or report greater or more severe symptoms. But there’s been a “paradigm shift” more recently, Dr. Christmas said. With awareness about menopause growing in the media and particularly on social media, and with greater awareness about racial disparities in menopausal symptoms and care – including that shown in Dr. Christmas’s work in the SWAN Study – Dr. Christmas has had more Black patients asking about HT and other treatments for their menopausal symptoms more recently.

“Just 10 years ago, I was trying to talk to people about hormones, and I’ve been giving them to people that need them for a long time, and I couldn’t,” Dr. Christmas said. “Now people are coming in, saying ‘no one’s ever talked to me about it’ or ‘I deserve this.’ It shows you the persuasion that social media and the Internet have on our thinking too, and I think that’s going to be interesting to look at, to see how that impacts people’s perception about wanting treatment.”

Dr. Conklin agreed that reasons for the disparities likely involve a combination of factors, including providers’ assumptions about different racial groups’ knowledge and receptiveness toward different treatments. One of the studies in their review also reported provider barriers to prescribing HT, which included lack of time, lack of adequate knowledge, and concern about risks to patients’ health.

“Medical providers tend to have less time with their patients compared to PhDs, and that time factor really makes a big difference in terms of what the focus is going to be in that [short] appointment,” Dr. Conklin said in an interview. “Perhaps from a provider point of view, they are prioritizing what they think is more important to their patient and not really listening deeply to what their patient is saying.”
 

Educating clinicians

Potentially supporting that possibility, Dr. Conklin and Dr. MacPhedran also had a poster at the conference that looked at prescribing of HT in both Black and White women with a diagnosis of depression, anxiety, or bipolar disorder.

“In a population with a high percentage of Black patients known to have more menopause symptoms, the data demonstrated a surprisingly low rate of documented menopause symptoms (11%) compared to prior reports of up to 80%,” the researchers reported. “This low rate may be related to patient reporting, physician inquiry, or physician documentation of menopause symptoms.” They further found that White women with menopause symptoms and one of those psychiatric diagnosis were 40% more likely to receive an HT prescription for menopausal symptoms than Black women with the same diagnoses and symptoms.

Dr. Conklin emphasized the importance of providers not overlooking women who have mental health disorders when it comes to treating menopausal symptoms, particularly since mental health conditions and menopausal symptoms can exacerbate each other.

“Their depression could worsen irritability, and anxiety can worsen during the transition, and it could be overlooked or thought of as another [psychiatric] episode,” Dr. Conklin said. Providers may need to “dig a little deeper,” especially if patients are reporting having hot flashes or brain fog.

A key way to help overcome the racial disparities – whether they result from systemic issues, implicit bias or assumptions, or patients’ own reticence – is education, Dr. Conklin said. She recommended that providers have educational material about menopause and treatments for menopausal symptoms in the waiting room and then ask patients about their symptoms and invite patients to ask questions.

Dr. MacPhedran added that education for clinicians is key as well.

“Now is a great time – menopause is hot, menopause is interesting, and it’s getting a little bit of a push in terms of research dollars,” Dr. MacPhedran said. “That will trickle down to more emphasis in medical education, whether that’s nurse practitioners, physicians, PAs, or midwives. Everybody needs more education on menopause so they can be more comfortable asking and answering these questions.”

Dr. Conklin said she would like to see expanded education on menopause for medical residents and in health psychology curricula as well.

Among the 13 studies that found disparities in prescribing patterns by age, seven studies showed that older women used or were prescribed or counseled on HT more often than younger women. Four studies found the opposite, with older women less likely to use or be prescribed or counseled about HT. One study had mixed results, and one study had expected prescribing patterns.

Five studies found income disparities and five studies found disparities by medical conditions in terms of HT use, prescribing, or counseling. Other disparities identified in smaller numbers of studies (four or fewer) included natural versus surgical menopause, insurance coverage, body mass index, geographic region, smoking and alcohol use.

The two biggest limitations of the research were its heterogeneity and the small number of studies included, which points to how scarce research on racial disparities in HT use really are, Dr. Conklin said.

The research did not use any external funding. The authors had no industry disclosures. Dr. Christmas has done an educational video for FertilityIQ.

PHILADELPHIA – The prescribing, counseling, and use of hormone therapy (HT) to treat menopausal symptoms is substantially more common among white women than among Black women, according to a review of published studies presented at the annual meeting of the Menopause Society (formerly The North American Menopause Society).

“Gaps in treatment can be used to inform health care providers about menopausal HT prescribing disparities, with the goal of improving equitable and advanced patient care among disadvantaged populations,” wrote Danette Conklin, PhD, an assistant professor of psychiatry and reproductive biology at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and a psychologist at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center; Sally MacPhedran, MD, an associate professor of reproductive biology at Case Western Reserve University and an ob.gyn at MetroHealth Medical Center, also in Cleveland; and their colleagues.

The researchers combed through PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and PsychInfo databases to identify all studies conducted in the United States since 1940 that contained data on patient demographics and prescribing patterns for hormone therapy to treat menopausal symptoms. In addition to excluding men, children, teens, trans men, and women who had contraindications for HT, the investigators excluded randomized clinical trials so that prescribing patterns would not be based on protocols or RCT participatory criteria.

The researchers identified 20 studies, ranging from 1973 through 2015, including 9 national studies and the others across different U.S. regions. They then analyzed differences in HT prescribing according to age, race/ethnicity, education, income, insurance type, body mass index, and mental health, including alcohol or substance use.

Seven of the studies assessed HT use based on patient surveys, seven used medical or medication records showing an HT prescription, two studies used insurance claims to show an HT prescription, and one study surveyed patients about whether they received an HT prescription. Another four studies used surveys that asked patients whether they received HT counseling but did not indicate if the patients received a prescription.

Half of the studies showed racial disparities in HT prescribing. In all of them, Black women used or were prescribed or counseled on using HT less than white, Hispanic, or Asian women. White women had greater use, prescribing, or counseling than all other races/ethnicities except one study in which Hispanic women were prescribed vaginal estrogen more often than white women.

Six of the studies showed education disparities in which menopausal women with lower education levels used less HT or were prescribed or counseled on HT less than women with higher education.
 

Complex reasons

Monica Christmas, MD, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Chicago and director of the Menopause Program and the Center for Women’s Integrated Health, said the study’s findings were not surprising, but the reasons for the racial disparities are likely complex.

Implicit bias in providers is likely one contributing factor, with some providers not thinking of offering HT to certain patients or not expecting the patients to be interested in it. Providers may also hesitate to prescribe HT to patients with more comorbidities because of concerns about HT risks, so if Black patients have more comorbidities, that could play a role in how many are offered or counseled on HT, she said.

“Probably the biggest take home is that it is important to be asking all of our patients about their symptoms and being proactive about talking about it,” Dr. Christmas said in an interview.

At the same time, in her anecdotal experience at a previous institution, Dr. Christmas noticed that her Black patients were less receptive to using hormone therapy than her White patients even though her Black patients tended to exhibit or report greater or more severe symptoms. But there’s been a “paradigm shift” more recently, Dr. Christmas said. With awareness about menopause growing in the media and particularly on social media, and with greater awareness about racial disparities in menopausal symptoms and care – including that shown in Dr. Christmas’s work in the SWAN Study – Dr. Christmas has had more Black patients asking about HT and other treatments for their menopausal symptoms more recently.

“Just 10 years ago, I was trying to talk to people about hormones, and I’ve been giving them to people that need them for a long time, and I couldn’t,” Dr. Christmas said. “Now people are coming in, saying ‘no one’s ever talked to me about it’ or ‘I deserve this.’ It shows you the persuasion that social media and the Internet have on our thinking too, and I think that’s going to be interesting to look at, to see how that impacts people’s perception about wanting treatment.”

Dr. Conklin agreed that reasons for the disparities likely involve a combination of factors, including providers’ assumptions about different racial groups’ knowledge and receptiveness toward different treatments. One of the studies in their review also reported provider barriers to prescribing HT, which included lack of time, lack of adequate knowledge, and concern about risks to patients’ health.

“Medical providers tend to have less time with their patients compared to PhDs, and that time factor really makes a big difference in terms of what the focus is going to be in that [short] appointment,” Dr. Conklin said in an interview. “Perhaps from a provider point of view, they are prioritizing what they think is more important to their patient and not really listening deeply to what their patient is saying.”
 

Educating clinicians

Potentially supporting that possibility, Dr. Conklin and Dr. MacPhedran also had a poster at the conference that looked at prescribing of HT in both Black and White women with a diagnosis of depression, anxiety, or bipolar disorder.

“In a population with a high percentage of Black patients known to have more menopause symptoms, the data demonstrated a surprisingly low rate of documented menopause symptoms (11%) compared to prior reports of up to 80%,” the researchers reported. “This low rate may be related to patient reporting, physician inquiry, or physician documentation of menopause symptoms.” They further found that White women with menopause symptoms and one of those psychiatric diagnosis were 40% more likely to receive an HT prescription for menopausal symptoms than Black women with the same diagnoses and symptoms.

Dr. Conklin emphasized the importance of providers not overlooking women who have mental health disorders when it comes to treating menopausal symptoms, particularly since mental health conditions and menopausal symptoms can exacerbate each other.

“Their depression could worsen irritability, and anxiety can worsen during the transition, and it could be overlooked or thought of as another [psychiatric] episode,” Dr. Conklin said. Providers may need to “dig a little deeper,” especially if patients are reporting having hot flashes or brain fog.

A key way to help overcome the racial disparities – whether they result from systemic issues, implicit bias or assumptions, or patients’ own reticence – is education, Dr. Conklin said. She recommended that providers have educational material about menopause and treatments for menopausal symptoms in the waiting room and then ask patients about their symptoms and invite patients to ask questions.

Dr. MacPhedran added that education for clinicians is key as well.

“Now is a great time – menopause is hot, menopause is interesting, and it’s getting a little bit of a push in terms of research dollars,” Dr. MacPhedran said. “That will trickle down to more emphasis in medical education, whether that’s nurse practitioners, physicians, PAs, or midwives. Everybody needs more education on menopause so they can be more comfortable asking and answering these questions.”

Dr. Conklin said she would like to see expanded education on menopause for medical residents and in health psychology curricula as well.

Among the 13 studies that found disparities in prescribing patterns by age, seven studies showed that older women used or were prescribed or counseled on HT more often than younger women. Four studies found the opposite, with older women less likely to use or be prescribed or counseled about HT. One study had mixed results, and one study had expected prescribing patterns.

Five studies found income disparities and five studies found disparities by medical conditions in terms of HT use, prescribing, or counseling. Other disparities identified in smaller numbers of studies (four or fewer) included natural versus surgical menopause, insurance coverage, body mass index, geographic region, smoking and alcohol use.

The two biggest limitations of the research were its heterogeneity and the small number of studies included, which points to how scarce research on racial disparities in HT use really are, Dr. Conklin said.

The research did not use any external funding. The authors had no industry disclosures. Dr. Christmas has done an educational video for FertilityIQ.

TOPLINE:

A minority of Black dermatologists hold leadership positions in academia.

METHODOLOGY:

• To assess the prevalence of Black dermatologists in academic dermatology programs, researchers obtained an inventory of all 142 U.S.-accredited dermatology residency programs from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education.
• The researchers drew from institutional websites, the Black Derm Directory (an online repository of Black dermatologists), and other sources to identify full- and part-time Black faculty.
• Variables of interest for each Black dermatologist included gender, institution, department title, academic and nonacademic leadership roles, publication number, National Institutes of Health grant funding, degrees, subspecialties, medical school attended, place of residency, and fellowship training.
• The researchers used Pearson’s chi-squared testing to calculate associations.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 86 Black faculty identified, 81.4% were female; most (42.4%) were in the southern United States, followed by the Midwest (23.5%); and 83% held full-time positions.
• Slightly more than one-quarter (26.7%) of the Black faculty attended a top 10 medical school, 16.3% graduated from a historically Black college and university medical school, and 43.5% of those with 25 or more research publications had attended a top 10 medical school.
• Only three dermatology department chairs were Black, and all were female. In addition, more than half of Black faculty (59.2%) were assistant professors, 37.7% held leadership positions at their institutions, and 32.6% held outside leadership roles in dermatology (such as leadership titles at professional dermatology organizations or editorial positions at a journal).

IN PRACTICE:

“Greater efforts are needed to recruit Black dermatology graduates into academic faculty positions,” and “faculty development programs offered by academic institutions and dermatologic associations ... should continue to be expanded,” the authors conclude.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Nada Elbuluk, MD, MSc, director of the skin of color and pigmentary disorders program and the diversity and inclusion program in the department of dermatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, led the research. The study was published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The process for identifying Black faculty and insufficient or outdated information on department websites were limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Elbuluk disclosed that she has served as a consultant for Avita, Scientis, Incyte, VisualDx, La Roche Posay, Beiersdorf, and Unilever. She has served on advisory boards for Allergan, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Incyte, Pfizer, Janssen, La Roche Posay, L’Oreal, McGraw Hill, and Dior. She has been a speaker for La Roche Posay, Scientis, Medscape, Beiersdorf, and Dior, and has served as investigator for Avita. Another author is an investigator and speaker for Castle Biosciences.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A minority of Black dermatologists hold leadership positions in academia.

METHODOLOGY:

• To assess the prevalence of Black dermatologists in academic dermatology programs, researchers obtained an inventory of all 142 U.S.-accredited dermatology residency programs from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education.
• The researchers drew from institutional websites, the Black Derm Directory (an online repository of Black dermatologists), and other sources to identify full- and part-time Black faculty.
• Variables of interest for each Black dermatologist included gender, institution, department title, academic and nonacademic leadership roles, publication number, National Institutes of Health grant funding, degrees, subspecialties, medical school attended, place of residency, and fellowship training.
• The researchers used Pearson’s chi-squared testing to calculate associations.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 86 Black faculty identified, 81.4% were female; most (42.4%) were in the southern United States, followed by the Midwest (23.5%); and 83% held full-time positions.
• Slightly more than one-quarter (26.7%) of the Black faculty attended a top 10 medical school, 16.3% graduated from a historically Black college and university medical school, and 43.5% of those with 25 or more research publications had attended a top 10 medical school.
• Only three dermatology department chairs were Black, and all were female. In addition, more than half of Black faculty (59.2%) were assistant professors, 37.7% held leadership positions at their institutions, and 32.6% held outside leadership roles in dermatology (such as leadership titles at professional dermatology organizations or editorial positions at a journal).

IN PRACTICE:

“Greater efforts are needed to recruit Black dermatology graduates into academic faculty positions,” and “faculty development programs offered by academic institutions and dermatologic associations ... should continue to be expanded,” the authors conclude.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Nada Elbuluk, MD, MSc, director of the skin of color and pigmentary disorders program and the diversity and inclusion program in the department of dermatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, led the research. The study was published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The process for identifying Black faculty and insufficient or outdated information on department websites were limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Elbuluk disclosed that she has served as a consultant for Avita, Scientis, Incyte, VisualDx, La Roche Posay, Beiersdorf, and Unilever. She has served on advisory boards for Allergan, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Incyte, Pfizer, Janssen, La Roche Posay, L’Oreal, McGraw Hill, and Dior. She has been a speaker for La Roche Posay, Scientis, Medscape, Beiersdorf, and Dior, and has served as investigator for Avita. Another author is an investigator and speaker for Castle Biosciences.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A minority of Black dermatologists hold leadership positions in academia.

METHODOLOGY:

• To assess the prevalence of Black dermatologists in academic dermatology programs, researchers obtained an inventory of all 142 U.S.-accredited dermatology residency programs from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education.
• The researchers drew from institutional websites, the Black Derm Directory (an online repository of Black dermatologists), and other sources to identify full- and part-time Black faculty.
• Variables of interest for each Black dermatologist included gender, institution, department title, academic and nonacademic leadership roles, publication number, National Institutes of Health grant funding, degrees, subspecialties, medical school attended, place of residency, and fellowship training.
• The researchers used Pearson’s chi-squared testing to calculate associations.

TAKEAWAY:

• Of the 86 Black faculty identified, 81.4% were female; most (42.4%) were in the southern United States, followed by the Midwest (23.5%); and 83% held full-time positions.
• Slightly more than one-quarter (26.7%) of the Black faculty attended a top 10 medical school, 16.3% graduated from a historically Black college and university medical school, and 43.5% of those with 25 or more research publications had attended a top 10 medical school.
• Only three dermatology department chairs were Black, and all were female. In addition, more than half of Black faculty (59.2%) were assistant professors, 37.7% held leadership positions at their institutions, and 32.6% held outside leadership roles in dermatology (such as leadership titles at professional dermatology organizations or editorial positions at a journal).

IN PRACTICE:

“Greater efforts are needed to recruit Black dermatology graduates into academic faculty positions,” and “faculty development programs offered by academic institutions and dermatologic associations ... should continue to be expanded,” the authors conclude.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Nada Elbuluk, MD, MSc, director of the skin of color and pigmentary disorders program and the diversity and inclusion program in the department of dermatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, led the research. The study was published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The process for identifying Black faculty and insufficient or outdated information on department websites were limitations.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Elbuluk disclosed that she has served as a consultant for Avita, Scientis, Incyte, VisualDx, La Roche Posay, Beiersdorf, and Unilever. She has served on advisory boards for Allergan, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Incyte, Pfizer, Janssen, La Roche Posay, L’Oreal, McGraw Hill, and Dior. She has been a speaker for La Roche Posay, Scientis, Medscape, Beiersdorf, and Dior, and has served as investigator for Avita. Another author is an investigator and speaker for Castle Biosciences.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new study confirms the safety and efficacy of the psychedelic MDMA in ethnically and racially diverse populations with moderate to severe posttraumatic stress disorder.

METHODOLOGY:

Trauma-focused psychotherapies are the gold standard treatment for PTSD, which affects about 5% of Americans each year. However, many patients have persistent symptoms, and up to 47% don’t respond to the SSRIs sertraline and paroxetine, which are approved for PTSD by the Food and Drug Administration.

Mounting evidence suggests 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine-assisted therapy (MDMA-AT), which promotes monoamine reuptake inhibition and release, simultaneously inducing prosocial feelings and softening responses to emotionally challenging and fearful stimuli, could be an alternative treatment for PTSD, possibly enhancing the benefits of psychotherapy.

A phase 3 study (MAPP1) showed MDMA-AT was generally well-tolerated and met the primary and secondary endpoints of reduced PTSD symptom severity and decreased functional impairment.

This new confirmatory phase 3 study (MAPP2) included 104 patients with PTSD who were randomized to MDMA-AT or placebo with therapy. Participants were a mean age of about 39 years, 71.2% were assigned female sex at birth, 33.7% identified as non-White, and 26.9% identified as Hispanic/Latino.

The mean Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) score at baseline was 39.0 and was similar between groups. Overall, 26.9% and 73.1% of patients had moderate or severe PTSD, respectively.
 

TAKEAWAY:

Among the 94 participants who completed the study, the least-squares mean change in CAPS-5 total score at 18 weeks was −23.7 (95% confidence interval, −26.9 to −20.4) for MDMA-AT versus −14.8 (95% CI, −18.3 to −11.3) for placebo with therapy (treatment difference: −8.9; 95% CI, −13.7 to −4.1; P < .001).

MDMA-AT significantly mitigated the secondary outcome of clinician-rated functional impairment, as measured by a reduction in the Sheehan Disability Scale score.

About 86.5% of participants treated with MDMA-AT achieved a clinically meaningful benefit, and 71.2% no longer met criteria for PTSD by study end.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were mostly transient and mild or moderate in severity. Although suicidal ideation was reported in both groups, MDMA did not appear to increase the risk, and there were no reports of problematic MDMA abuse or dependence.
 

IN PRACTICE:

“This confirmatory phase 3 trial showed consistent benefits of MDMA-AT in an ethnoracially diverse group of individuals with long-standing moderate to severe PTSD and numerous comorbidities,” write the authors, noting the dropout rate was low and treatment was generally well tolerated.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Jennifer M. Mitchell, PhD, department of neurology and department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues. It was published online in Nature Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study excluded participants with high suicide risk, comorbid personality disorders, and underlying cardiovascular disease. Effect sizes for MDMA-AT were similar to MAPP1 and, although higher than those observed in SSRI studies, the superiority of MDMA-AT over SSRIs cannot be assumed without a direct comparison.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, with support from the Steven and Alexandra Cohen Foundation, and organized by the MAPS Public Benefit Corporation. Dr. Mitchell has reported receiving research support from MAPS; grants/contracts from the Veterans Administration and FDA; royalties/licenses from the University of California, Los Angeles; and payment/honoraria from Stanford University and Johns Hopkins. She has been a reviewer for the National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network, a member of the Research Advisory Panel for the California Department of Justice, and a grant reviewer for the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new study confirms the safety and efficacy of the psychedelic MDMA in ethnically and racially diverse populations with moderate to severe posttraumatic stress disorder.

METHODOLOGY:

Trauma-focused psychotherapies are the gold standard treatment for PTSD, which affects about 5% of Americans each year. However, many patients have persistent symptoms, and up to 47% don’t respond to the SSRIs sertraline and paroxetine, which are approved for PTSD by the Food and Drug Administration.

Mounting evidence suggests 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine-assisted therapy (MDMA-AT), which promotes monoamine reuptake inhibition and release, simultaneously inducing prosocial feelings and softening responses to emotionally challenging and fearful stimuli, could be an alternative treatment for PTSD, possibly enhancing the benefits of psychotherapy.

A phase 3 study (MAPP1) showed MDMA-AT was generally well-tolerated and met the primary and secondary endpoints of reduced PTSD symptom severity and decreased functional impairment.

This new confirmatory phase 3 study (MAPP2) included 104 patients with PTSD who were randomized to MDMA-AT or placebo with therapy. Participants were a mean age of about 39 years, 71.2% were assigned female sex at birth, 33.7% identified as non-White, and 26.9% identified as Hispanic/Latino.

The mean Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) score at baseline was 39.0 and was similar between groups. Overall, 26.9% and 73.1% of patients had moderate or severe PTSD, respectively.
 

TAKEAWAY:

Among the 94 participants who completed the study, the least-squares mean change in CAPS-5 total score at 18 weeks was −23.7 (95% confidence interval, −26.9 to −20.4) for MDMA-AT versus −14.8 (95% CI, −18.3 to −11.3) for placebo with therapy (treatment difference: −8.9; 95% CI, −13.7 to −4.1; P < .001).

MDMA-AT significantly mitigated the secondary outcome of clinician-rated functional impairment, as measured by a reduction in the Sheehan Disability Scale score.

About 86.5% of participants treated with MDMA-AT achieved a clinically meaningful benefit, and 71.2% no longer met criteria for PTSD by study end.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were mostly transient and mild or moderate in severity. Although suicidal ideation was reported in both groups, MDMA did not appear to increase the risk, and there were no reports of problematic MDMA abuse or dependence.
 

IN PRACTICE:

“This confirmatory phase 3 trial showed consistent benefits of MDMA-AT in an ethnoracially diverse group of individuals with long-standing moderate to severe PTSD and numerous comorbidities,” write the authors, noting the dropout rate was low and treatment was generally well tolerated.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Jennifer M. Mitchell, PhD, department of neurology and department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues. It was published online in Nature Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study excluded participants with high suicide risk, comorbid personality disorders, and underlying cardiovascular disease. Effect sizes for MDMA-AT were similar to MAPP1 and, although higher than those observed in SSRI studies, the superiority of MDMA-AT over SSRIs cannot be assumed without a direct comparison.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, with support from the Steven and Alexandra Cohen Foundation, and organized by the MAPS Public Benefit Corporation. Dr. Mitchell has reported receiving research support from MAPS; grants/contracts from the Veterans Administration and FDA; royalties/licenses from the University of California, Los Angeles; and payment/honoraria from Stanford University and Johns Hopkins. She has been a reviewer for the National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network, a member of the Research Advisory Panel for the California Department of Justice, and a grant reviewer for the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A new study confirms the safety and efficacy of the psychedelic MDMA in ethnically and racially diverse populations with moderate to severe posttraumatic stress disorder.

METHODOLOGY:

Trauma-focused psychotherapies are the gold standard treatment for PTSD, which affects about 5% of Americans each year. However, many patients have persistent symptoms, and up to 47% don’t respond to the SSRIs sertraline and paroxetine, which are approved for PTSD by the Food and Drug Administration.

Mounting evidence suggests 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine-assisted therapy (MDMA-AT), which promotes monoamine reuptake inhibition and release, simultaneously inducing prosocial feelings and softening responses to emotionally challenging and fearful stimuli, could be an alternative treatment for PTSD, possibly enhancing the benefits of psychotherapy.

A phase 3 study (MAPP1) showed MDMA-AT was generally well-tolerated and met the primary and secondary endpoints of reduced PTSD symptom severity and decreased functional impairment.

This new confirmatory phase 3 study (MAPP2) included 104 patients with PTSD who were randomized to MDMA-AT or placebo with therapy. Participants were a mean age of about 39 years, 71.2% were assigned female sex at birth, 33.7% identified as non-White, and 26.9% identified as Hispanic/Latino.

The mean Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) score at baseline was 39.0 and was similar between groups. Overall, 26.9% and 73.1% of patients had moderate or severe PTSD, respectively.
 

TAKEAWAY:

Among the 94 participants who completed the study, the least-squares mean change in CAPS-5 total score at 18 weeks was −23.7 (95% confidence interval, −26.9 to −20.4) for MDMA-AT versus −14.8 (95% CI, −18.3 to −11.3) for placebo with therapy (treatment difference: −8.9; 95% CI, −13.7 to −4.1; P < .001).

MDMA-AT significantly mitigated the secondary outcome of clinician-rated functional impairment, as measured by a reduction in the Sheehan Disability Scale score.

About 86.5% of participants treated with MDMA-AT achieved a clinically meaningful benefit, and 71.2% no longer met criteria for PTSD by study end.

Treatment-emergent adverse events were mostly transient and mild or moderate in severity. Although suicidal ideation was reported in both groups, MDMA did not appear to increase the risk, and there were no reports of problematic MDMA abuse or dependence.
 

IN PRACTICE:

“This confirmatory phase 3 trial showed consistent benefits of MDMA-AT in an ethnoracially diverse group of individuals with long-standing moderate to severe PTSD and numerous comorbidities,” write the authors, noting the dropout rate was low and treatment was generally well tolerated.

SOURCE:

The study was conducted by Jennifer M. Mitchell, PhD, department of neurology and department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues. It was published online in Nature Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

The study excluded participants with high suicide risk, comorbid personality disorders, and underlying cardiovascular disease. Effect sizes for MDMA-AT were similar to MAPP1 and, although higher than those observed in SSRI studies, the superiority of MDMA-AT over SSRIs cannot be assumed without a direct comparison.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, with support from the Steven and Alexandra Cohen Foundation, and organized by the MAPS Public Benefit Corporation. Dr. Mitchell has reported receiving research support from MAPS; grants/contracts from the Veterans Administration and FDA; royalties/licenses from the University of California, Los Angeles; and payment/honoraria from Stanford University and Johns Hopkins. She has been a reviewer for the National Institute on Drug Abuse Clinical Trials Network, a member of the Research Advisory Panel for the California Department of Justice, and a grant reviewer for the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Multiple emerging risk factors for cardiovascular disease in women must be recognized and assessed to provide timely diagnosis and treatment, according to Dipti N. Itchhaporia, MD, an interventional cardiologist in southern California. These risk factors include pregnancy complications, autoimmune diseases, depression, breast cancer, and breast arterial calcification.

During the session titled “Cardiac Care in Women: Emerging Risk Factors” at CardioAcademic 2023, the former president of the American College of Cardiology emphasized that gender equity in care for cardiovascular disease will be achieved only when risk factors are evaluated from a gender-dependent perspective and when assessments are broadened to include novel and unrecognized risk factors, not just traditional risk factors.

Dr. Itchhaporia also remarked that women and primary care clinicians must be educated on the symptoms of heart disease so that they can be on the alert and provide patients with comprehensive treatments when necessary.

“Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death in women, at least in the United States, and globally the outlook is similar,” she explained. “That’s why we need to provide our patients with guidance and carefully investigate when they experience chest pain. We need to remember that smoking and obesity pose a higher risk for cardiovascular disease in women than in men. Taking these risk factors into account will really make a difference by allowing us to provide more timely and targeted care.”

In her presentation, Dr. Itchhaporia noted that cardiovascular disease accounts for 35% of deaths in women worldwide. She reminded her audience that, according to The Lancet Women and Cardiovascular Disease Commission, heart diseases in this population remain “understudied, underrecognized, underdiagnosed, and undertreated. Furthermore, women are underrepresented in cardiovascular [clinical practice].”

She mentioned this because, despite U.S. legislation enacted between 1980 and 1990 that mandated the inclusion of women in clinical trials, women accounted for less than 39% of participants in cardiovascular clinical trials between 2010 and 2017. According to Dr. Itchhaporia, this situation limits the potential for developing tailored strategies and recommendations to treat the cardiovascular diseases affecting women.
 

Emerging risk factors

Dr. Itchhaporia pointed out that traditional risk factors have been known for many years. For example, 80% of women aged 75 years or younger have arterial hypertension. Only 29% receive adequate blood pressure control, those living with diabetes have a 45% greater risk of suffering ischemic heart disease, and obesity confers a 64% higher risk of developing ischemic heart disease in women versus 46% in men.

In addition to these factors, she noted that emerging factors must be assessed carefully. For example, women who experience pregnancy complications like gestational diabetes have a higher risk for ischemic heart disease and type 2 diabetes. Women with hypertension and preeclampsia are at a threefold higher risk of developing ischemic heart disease.

“Pregnancy can really be a major stress test for the heart, and I believe that, as health care professionals, we should all be asking women if they have had pregnancy-related complications. I don’t think that’s something we’ve been doing on a regular basis. Statistically, we know that 10%-20% of pregnant women report complications during pregnancy, and strong associations have been shown between gestational hypertension [and] preeclampsia.”

Dr. Itchhaporia explained that depression, a condition that globally affects women twice as much as men, is another emerging factor (though it has received some increased recognition). She explained that, in women, depression is a significant risk factor for developing a major adverse cardiovascular event or a combined event of cardiac death and myocardial infarction related to the target lesion and revascularization of the target lesion because of ischemia. Furthermore, women who have experienced a cardiac-related event are more likely to have depression than men.

“If we look into it in more detail, depression leads to changes in behavioral habits and physiological mechanisms,” she said. “Women living with depression are at higher risk of smoking, not exercising as much, are perhaps less careful with their hygiene, are not likely to adhere to their medications, and don’t sleep as well. All this moves them in the direction of heart disease.”

Added to these factors are autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus, where the female-to-male ratio for rheumatoid arthritis is 2½:1 and for lupus it’s 9:1. Dr. Itchhaporia explained that patients with rheumatoid arthritis are at two- to threefold greater risk for myocardial infarction and have a 50% higher risk for stroke. In the case of systemic lupus, the risk of myocardial infarction is 7-50 times greater than in the general population. She noted that cardiovascular risk calculators underestimate the burden of risk in patients with these diseases.

Lastly, she brought up breast cancer and breast arterial calcification as additional emerging risk factors. She explained that women with breast cancer are more likely to develop hypertension and diabetes, compared with women without this diagnosis. Women with hypertension or diabetes before developing breast cancer have twice the risk for heart problems after cancer.

She added that 12.7% of women screened for breast cancer have some degree of breast calcification. She explained that this occurs when calcium accumulates in the middle layer of artery walls in the breast, which is linked to aging, type 2 diabetes, or arterial hypertension and may be a marker of arterial stiffening, which is a cardiovascular disease.

“It’s extremely important to take into consideration data suggesting a strong association between breast calcifications and cardiovascular disease, independent of other known risk factors of cardiovascular disease. We need to improve our tests for detecting cardiovascular disease in women and we need to ask specific questions and not overlook these emerging factors,” she noted.
 

Improving health outcomes

Panelist María Guadalupe Parra Machuca, MD, a cardiologist in Guadalajara, Mexico, specializing in women’s heart disease, agreed that it is high time that clinical practice reflect public health policies, so that efforts to diagnose and treat cardiovascular diseases in women more effectively can transition from theory to reality.

“As physicians, we cannot allow public policy to remain outside of the reality we face,” she stressed. “We need to let it impact the decisions we make. Everything we see day to day, the things we learn at these conferences – let’s put it into practice. Otherwise, all our discussions and all the steps taken to improve care, from primary to highly specialized care and to detect and treat cardiovascular disease in women, will be nothing but rhetoric.”

Clinical cardiology specialist Victor Leal, MD, noted that, according to preliminary results from the national survey of cardiovascular risk factors in Mexican women, Mexico is no exception to these emerging risk factors for cardiovascular disease in women. More than 50% of women in Mexico have traditional risk factors, most notably hypertension, obesity, and diabetes, while hypertensive disorders of pregnancy top the list of other sex-specific risk factors.

“Not only are these factors increasing, but also having them increases the risk of a worse prognosis, leaving us with a very challenging scenario,” said Dr. Leal. “Not only do we need to educate patients about the traditional risk factors, but also about factors that might not be on our radar. We need to get women to link these factors to cardiovascular disease and to the possibility of developing much more adverse outcomes. This will reinforce our diagnosis and treatment.”

In an interview, Dr. Itchhaporia emphasized the changing face of cardiovascular disease for women, who have worse short- and long-term outcomes than men because they are not asked sex-specific questions during initial encounters and they experience greater prehospital delays.

She noted that, while experts need to raise awareness of the emerging risk factors among health care professionals, they also need to use information campaigns to make women aware of what the risks are. Then, if they experience any of the emerging risk factors, they can discuss it with their treating physicians.

“We need to assess both the traditional risk factors and the novel ones, those that are underrecognized. We need to include the history of pregnancy and complications during this period and we need to educate women about symptoms of heart disease like chest pain, difficulty breathing, and increasing fatigue,” she emphasized. “We must also provide guidance as to lifestyle, diet, and levels of physical activity and be aware of stress and symptoms of depression. Only then will we bring greater awareness to the fact that cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death among women, and then we can reverse these trends.”

Dr. Itchhaporia, Dr. Parra, and Dr. Leal reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Multiple emerging risk factors for cardiovascular disease in women must be recognized and assessed to provide timely diagnosis and treatment, according to Dipti N. Itchhaporia, MD, an interventional cardiologist in southern California. These risk factors include pregnancy complications, autoimmune diseases, depression, breast cancer, and breast arterial calcification.

During the session titled “Cardiac Care in Women: Emerging Risk Factors” at CardioAcademic 2023, the former president of the American College of Cardiology emphasized that gender equity in care for cardiovascular disease will be achieved only when risk factors are evaluated from a gender-dependent perspective and when assessments are broadened to include novel and unrecognized risk factors, not just traditional risk factors.

Dr. Itchhaporia also remarked that women and primary care clinicians must be educated on the symptoms of heart disease so that they can be on the alert and provide patients with comprehensive treatments when necessary.

“Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death in women, at least in the United States, and globally the outlook is similar,” she explained. “That’s why we need to provide our patients with guidance and carefully investigate when they experience chest pain. We need to remember that smoking and obesity pose a higher risk for cardiovascular disease in women than in men. Taking these risk factors into account will really make a difference by allowing us to provide more timely and targeted care.”

In her presentation, Dr. Itchhaporia noted that cardiovascular disease accounts for 35% of deaths in women worldwide. She reminded her audience that, according to The Lancet Women and Cardiovascular Disease Commission, heart diseases in this population remain “understudied, underrecognized, underdiagnosed, and undertreated. Furthermore, women are underrepresented in cardiovascular [clinical practice].”

She mentioned this because, despite U.S. legislation enacted between 1980 and 1990 that mandated the inclusion of women in clinical trials, women accounted for less than 39% of participants in cardiovascular clinical trials between 2010 and 2017. According to Dr. Itchhaporia, this situation limits the potential for developing tailored strategies and recommendations to treat the cardiovascular diseases affecting women.
 

Emerging risk factors

Dr. Itchhaporia pointed out that traditional risk factors have been known for many years. For example, 80% of women aged 75 years or younger have arterial hypertension. Only 29% receive adequate blood pressure control, those living with diabetes have a 45% greater risk of suffering ischemic heart disease, and obesity confers a 64% higher risk of developing ischemic heart disease in women versus 46% in men.

In addition to these factors, she noted that emerging factors must be assessed carefully. For example, women who experience pregnancy complications like gestational diabetes have a higher risk for ischemic heart disease and type 2 diabetes. Women with hypertension and preeclampsia are at a threefold higher risk of developing ischemic heart disease.

“Pregnancy can really be a major stress test for the heart, and I believe that, as health care professionals, we should all be asking women if they have had pregnancy-related complications. I don’t think that’s something we’ve been doing on a regular basis. Statistically, we know that 10%-20% of pregnant women report complications during pregnancy, and strong associations have been shown between gestational hypertension [and] preeclampsia.”

Dr. Itchhaporia explained that depression, a condition that globally affects women twice as much as men, is another emerging factor (though it has received some increased recognition). She explained that, in women, depression is a significant risk factor for developing a major adverse cardiovascular event or a combined event of cardiac death and myocardial infarction related to the target lesion and revascularization of the target lesion because of ischemia. Furthermore, women who have experienced a cardiac-related event are more likely to have depression than men.

“If we look into it in more detail, depression leads to changes in behavioral habits and physiological mechanisms,” she said. “Women living with depression are at higher risk of smoking, not exercising as much, are perhaps less careful with their hygiene, are not likely to adhere to their medications, and don’t sleep as well. All this moves them in the direction of heart disease.”

Added to these factors are autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus, where the female-to-male ratio for rheumatoid arthritis is 2½:1 and for lupus it’s 9:1. Dr. Itchhaporia explained that patients with rheumatoid arthritis are at two- to threefold greater risk for myocardial infarction and have a 50% higher risk for stroke. In the case of systemic lupus, the risk of myocardial infarction is 7-50 times greater than in the general population. She noted that cardiovascular risk calculators underestimate the burden of risk in patients with these diseases.

Lastly, she brought up breast cancer and breast arterial calcification as additional emerging risk factors. She explained that women with breast cancer are more likely to develop hypertension and diabetes, compared with women without this diagnosis. Women with hypertension or diabetes before developing breast cancer have twice the risk for heart problems after cancer.

She added that 12.7% of women screened for breast cancer have some degree of breast calcification. She explained that this occurs when calcium accumulates in the middle layer of artery walls in the breast, which is linked to aging, type 2 diabetes, or arterial hypertension and may be a marker of arterial stiffening, which is a cardiovascular disease.

“It’s extremely important to take into consideration data suggesting a strong association between breast calcifications and cardiovascular disease, independent of other known risk factors of cardiovascular disease. We need to improve our tests for detecting cardiovascular disease in women and we need to ask specific questions and not overlook these emerging factors,” she noted.
 

Improving health outcomes

Panelist María Guadalupe Parra Machuca, MD, a cardiologist in Guadalajara, Mexico, specializing in women’s heart disease, agreed that it is high time that clinical practice reflect public health policies, so that efforts to diagnose and treat cardiovascular diseases in women more effectively can transition from theory to reality.

“As physicians, we cannot allow public policy to remain outside of the reality we face,” she stressed. “We need to let it impact the decisions we make. Everything we see day to day, the things we learn at these conferences – let’s put it into practice. Otherwise, all our discussions and all the steps taken to improve care, from primary to highly specialized care and to detect and treat cardiovascular disease in women, will be nothing but rhetoric.”

Clinical cardiology specialist Victor Leal, MD, noted that, according to preliminary results from the national survey of cardiovascular risk factors in Mexican women, Mexico is no exception to these emerging risk factors for cardiovascular disease in women. More than 50% of women in Mexico have traditional risk factors, most notably hypertension, obesity, and diabetes, while hypertensive disorders of pregnancy top the list of other sex-specific risk factors.

“Not only are these factors increasing, but also having them increases the risk of a worse prognosis, leaving us with a very challenging scenario,” said Dr. Leal. “Not only do we need to educate patients about the traditional risk factors, but also about factors that might not be on our radar. We need to get women to link these factors to cardiovascular disease and to the possibility of developing much more adverse outcomes. This will reinforce our diagnosis and treatment.”

In an interview, Dr. Itchhaporia emphasized the changing face of cardiovascular disease for women, who have worse short- and long-term outcomes than men because they are not asked sex-specific questions during initial encounters and they experience greater prehospital delays.

She noted that, while experts need to raise awareness of the emerging risk factors among health care professionals, they also need to use information campaigns to make women aware of what the risks are. Then, if they experience any of the emerging risk factors, they can discuss it with their treating physicians.

“We need to assess both the traditional risk factors and the novel ones, those that are underrecognized. We need to include the history of pregnancy and complications during this period and we need to educate women about symptoms of heart disease like chest pain, difficulty breathing, and increasing fatigue,” she emphasized. “We must also provide guidance as to lifestyle, diet, and levels of physical activity and be aware of stress and symptoms of depression. Only then will we bring greater awareness to the fact that cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death among women, and then we can reverse these trends.”

Dr. Itchhaporia, Dr. Parra, and Dr. Leal reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Multiple emerging risk factors for cardiovascular disease in women must be recognized and assessed to provide timely diagnosis and treatment, according to Dipti N. Itchhaporia, MD, an interventional cardiologist in southern California. These risk factors include pregnancy complications, autoimmune diseases, depression, breast cancer, and breast arterial calcification.

During the session titled “Cardiac Care in Women: Emerging Risk Factors” at CardioAcademic 2023, the former president of the American College of Cardiology emphasized that gender equity in care for cardiovascular disease will be achieved only when risk factors are evaluated from a gender-dependent perspective and when assessments are broadened to include novel and unrecognized risk factors, not just traditional risk factors.

Dr. Itchhaporia also remarked that women and primary care clinicians must be educated on the symptoms of heart disease so that they can be on the alert and provide patients with comprehensive treatments when necessary.

“Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death in women, at least in the United States, and globally the outlook is similar,” she explained. “That’s why we need to provide our patients with guidance and carefully investigate when they experience chest pain. We need to remember that smoking and obesity pose a higher risk for cardiovascular disease in women than in men. Taking these risk factors into account will really make a difference by allowing us to provide more timely and targeted care.”

In her presentation, Dr. Itchhaporia noted that cardiovascular disease accounts for 35% of deaths in women worldwide. She reminded her audience that, according to The Lancet Women and Cardiovascular Disease Commission, heart diseases in this population remain “understudied, underrecognized, underdiagnosed, and undertreated. Furthermore, women are underrepresented in cardiovascular [clinical practice].”

She mentioned this because, despite U.S. legislation enacted between 1980 and 1990 that mandated the inclusion of women in clinical trials, women accounted for less than 39% of participants in cardiovascular clinical trials between 2010 and 2017. According to Dr. Itchhaporia, this situation limits the potential for developing tailored strategies and recommendations to treat the cardiovascular diseases affecting women.
 

Emerging risk factors

Dr. Itchhaporia pointed out that traditional risk factors have been known for many years. For example, 80% of women aged 75 years or younger have arterial hypertension. Only 29% receive adequate blood pressure control, those living with diabetes have a 45% greater risk of suffering ischemic heart disease, and obesity confers a 64% higher risk of developing ischemic heart disease in women versus 46% in men.

In addition to these factors, she noted that emerging factors must be assessed carefully. For example, women who experience pregnancy complications like gestational diabetes have a higher risk for ischemic heart disease and type 2 diabetes. Women with hypertension and preeclampsia are at a threefold higher risk of developing ischemic heart disease.

“Pregnancy can really be a major stress test for the heart, and I believe that, as health care professionals, we should all be asking women if they have had pregnancy-related complications. I don’t think that’s something we’ve been doing on a regular basis. Statistically, we know that 10%-20% of pregnant women report complications during pregnancy, and strong associations have been shown between gestational hypertension [and] preeclampsia.”

Dr. Itchhaporia explained that depression, a condition that globally affects women twice as much as men, is another emerging factor (though it has received some increased recognition). She explained that, in women, depression is a significant risk factor for developing a major adverse cardiovascular event or a combined event of cardiac death and myocardial infarction related to the target lesion and revascularization of the target lesion because of ischemia. Furthermore, women who have experienced a cardiac-related event are more likely to have depression than men.

“If we look into it in more detail, depression leads to changes in behavioral habits and physiological mechanisms,” she said. “Women living with depression are at higher risk of smoking, not exercising as much, are perhaps less careful with their hygiene, are not likely to adhere to their medications, and don’t sleep as well. All this moves them in the direction of heart disease.”

Added to these factors are autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus, where the female-to-male ratio for rheumatoid arthritis is 2½:1 and for lupus it’s 9:1. Dr. Itchhaporia explained that patients with rheumatoid arthritis are at two- to threefold greater risk for myocardial infarction and have a 50% higher risk for stroke. In the case of systemic lupus, the risk of myocardial infarction is 7-50 times greater than in the general population. She noted that cardiovascular risk calculators underestimate the burden of risk in patients with these diseases.

Lastly, she brought up breast cancer and breast arterial calcification as additional emerging risk factors. She explained that women with breast cancer are more likely to develop hypertension and diabetes, compared with women without this diagnosis. Women with hypertension or diabetes before developing breast cancer have twice the risk for heart problems after cancer.

She added that 12.7% of women screened for breast cancer have some degree of breast calcification. She explained that this occurs when calcium accumulates in the middle layer of artery walls in the breast, which is linked to aging, type 2 diabetes, or arterial hypertension and may be a marker of arterial stiffening, which is a cardiovascular disease.

“It’s extremely important to take into consideration data suggesting a strong association between breast calcifications and cardiovascular disease, independent of other known risk factors of cardiovascular disease. We need to improve our tests for detecting cardiovascular disease in women and we need to ask specific questions and not overlook these emerging factors,” she noted.
 

Improving health outcomes

Panelist María Guadalupe Parra Machuca, MD, a cardiologist in Guadalajara, Mexico, specializing in women’s heart disease, agreed that it is high time that clinical practice reflect public health policies, so that efforts to diagnose and treat cardiovascular diseases in women more effectively can transition from theory to reality.

“As physicians, we cannot allow public policy to remain outside of the reality we face,” she stressed. “We need to let it impact the decisions we make. Everything we see day to day, the things we learn at these conferences – let’s put it into practice. Otherwise, all our discussions and all the steps taken to improve care, from primary to highly specialized care and to detect and treat cardiovascular disease in women, will be nothing but rhetoric.”

Clinical cardiology specialist Victor Leal, MD, noted that, according to preliminary results from the national survey of cardiovascular risk factors in Mexican women, Mexico is no exception to these emerging risk factors for cardiovascular disease in women. More than 50% of women in Mexico have traditional risk factors, most notably hypertension, obesity, and diabetes, while hypertensive disorders of pregnancy top the list of other sex-specific risk factors.

“Not only are these factors increasing, but also having them increases the risk of a worse prognosis, leaving us with a very challenging scenario,” said Dr. Leal. “Not only do we need to educate patients about the traditional risk factors, but also about factors that might not be on our radar. We need to get women to link these factors to cardiovascular disease and to the possibility of developing much more adverse outcomes. This will reinforce our diagnosis and treatment.”

In an interview, Dr. Itchhaporia emphasized the changing face of cardiovascular disease for women, who have worse short- and long-term outcomes than men because they are not asked sex-specific questions during initial encounters and they experience greater prehospital delays.

She noted that, while experts need to raise awareness of the emerging risk factors among health care professionals, they also need to use information campaigns to make women aware of what the risks are. Then, if they experience any of the emerging risk factors, they can discuss it with their treating physicians.

“We need to assess both the traditional risk factors and the novel ones, those that are underrecognized. We need to include the history of pregnancy and complications during this period and we need to educate women about symptoms of heart disease like chest pain, difficulty breathing, and increasing fatigue,” she emphasized. “We must also provide guidance as to lifestyle, diet, and levels of physical activity and be aware of stress and symptoms of depression. Only then will we bring greater awareness to the fact that cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death among women, and then we can reverse these trends.”

Dr. Itchhaporia, Dr. Parra, and Dr. Leal reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Palliative care has been shown to improve quality of life, receipt of goal-concordant care, end-of-life decision-making, and improvement in pain and symptoms in individuals with serious illness. However, palliative and end-of-life care remain underutilized in racial and ethnic minorities.¹ Health disparities such as access, quality of care, and health outcomes among minority groups exist in delivery and receipt of care within the health care system, and this includes the care of individuals with serious illness and at the end of life.¹

Racial and ethnic minorities are less likely to receive goal-concordant care, participate in advance care planning, and have access to palliative care or hospice.^2-4 They are more likely to die in a hospital, have inadequate pain and symptom management, and experience poor provider-patient communication.^5-7 Other contributing factors include lack of knowledge of hospice and palliative care services, mistrust of the health care system, spiritual and religious beliefs, provider bias, and cultural beliefs.¹

Despite these disparities, interventions have had limited success,⁸ and there are gaps in content, methods, and inclusion of racial and ethnic groups within palliative care research.⁷

Efforts to improve health equity for people with serious illness have been identified as an “urgent call to action.”¹

A few recommended actionable items include delivering culturally competent care by ensuring availability of culturally and linguistically appropriate materials and information, education, and training for providers, and practicing cultural humility; contributing to workforce diversity by hiring and training diverse staff; and partnering with community organizations to build trust and to facilitate dissemination of culturally and linguistically appropriate information to providers in caring for their diverse patient populations.^1,9

One of the first steps identified is to recognize that there is a problem and prioritize efforts to understand its “multifaceted nature.”¹⁰ This should occur on multiple levels including the individual (patient and caregiver), interpersonal (health care team), organization, and policy levels,¹⁰ and be done through clinical, research, and educational platforms.

At the interpersonal level, we as the health care team can start by reflecting, acknowledging biases, seeking educational and training opportunities on cross-cultural interactions, learning about cultural and spiritual beliefs, and developing skills in culturally and linguistically appropriate communication regarding goals of care and advance care planning.^1,10

For those seeking resources, organizations such as the Center to Advance Palliative Care’s Project Equity and the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine have ongoing efforts to educate and train physicians and health care professionals to improve and understand health equity in palliative care by providing resource portals, toolkits, training, and general information.

It is imperative to move forward in actionable ways to address not only racial and ethnic disparities, but advance equity in serious illness care for health care organizations, providers, and policymakers.¹

Dr. Kang is in the division of gerontology and geriatric medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle.

References

1. Barrett NJ et al. N C Med J. 2020;81:254-6.

2. Johnson KS et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59:732-7.

3. Sharma RK et al. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3802-8.

4. Muni S et al. Chest. 2011;139:1025-33.

5. Anderson KO et al. J Pain. 2009;10:1187-204.

6. Mack JW et al. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:1533-40.

7. Johnson KS. J Palliat Med. 2013;16(11):1329-34.

8. Brown CE et al. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2021;63(5):e465-e71.

9. Chambers B. Center for Advancing Palliative Care. July 9, 2020.

10. Koffman J et al. BMC Palliat Care. 2023;22(64):1-3.

Palliative care has been shown to improve quality of life, receipt of goal-concordant care, end-of-life decision-making, and improvement in pain and symptoms in individuals with serious illness. However, palliative and end-of-life care remain underutilized in racial and ethnic minorities.¹ Health disparities such as access, quality of care, and health outcomes among minority groups exist in delivery and receipt of care within the health care system, and this includes the care of individuals with serious illness and at the end of life.¹

Racial and ethnic minorities are less likely to receive goal-concordant care, participate in advance care planning, and have access to palliative care or hospice.^2-4 They are more likely to die in a hospital, have inadequate pain and symptom management, and experience poor provider-patient communication.^5-7 Other contributing factors include lack of knowledge of hospice and palliative care services, mistrust of the health care system, spiritual and religious beliefs, provider bias, and cultural beliefs.¹

Despite these disparities, interventions have had limited success,⁸ and there are gaps in content, methods, and inclusion of racial and ethnic groups within palliative care research.⁷

Efforts to improve health equity for people with serious illness have been identified as an “urgent call to action.”¹

A few recommended actionable items include delivering culturally competent care by ensuring availability of culturally and linguistically appropriate materials and information, education, and training for providers, and practicing cultural humility; contributing to workforce diversity by hiring and training diverse staff; and partnering with community organizations to build trust and to facilitate dissemination of culturally and linguistically appropriate information to providers in caring for their diverse patient populations.^1,9

One of the first steps identified is to recognize that there is a problem and prioritize efforts to understand its “multifaceted nature.”¹⁰ This should occur on multiple levels including the individual (patient and caregiver), interpersonal (health care team), organization, and policy levels,¹⁰ and be done through clinical, research, and educational platforms.

At the interpersonal level, we as the health care team can start by reflecting, acknowledging biases, seeking educational and training opportunities on cross-cultural interactions, learning about cultural and spiritual beliefs, and developing skills in culturally and linguistically appropriate communication regarding goals of care and advance care planning.^1,10

For those seeking resources, organizations such as the Center to Advance Palliative Care’s Project Equity and the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine have ongoing efforts to educate and train physicians and health care professionals to improve and understand health equity in palliative care by providing resource portals, toolkits, training, and general information.

It is imperative to move forward in actionable ways to address not only racial and ethnic disparities, but advance equity in serious illness care for health care organizations, providers, and policymakers.¹

Dr. Kang is in the division of gerontology and geriatric medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle.

References

1. Barrett NJ et al. N C Med J. 2020;81:254-6.

2. Johnson KS et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59:732-7.

3. Sharma RK et al. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3802-8.

4. Muni S et al. Chest. 2011;139:1025-33.

5. Anderson KO et al. J Pain. 2009;10:1187-204.

6. Mack JW et al. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:1533-40.

7. Johnson KS. J Palliat Med. 2013;16(11):1329-34.

8. Brown CE et al. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2021;63(5):e465-e71.

9. Chambers B. Center for Advancing Palliative Care. July 9, 2020.

10. Koffman J et al. BMC Palliat Care. 2023;22(64):1-3.

Palliative care has been shown to improve quality of life, receipt of goal-concordant care, end-of-life decision-making, and improvement in pain and symptoms in individuals with serious illness. However, palliative and end-of-life care remain underutilized in racial and ethnic minorities.¹ Health disparities such as access, quality of care, and health outcomes among minority groups exist in delivery and receipt of care within the health care system, and this includes the care of individuals with serious illness and at the end of life.¹

Racial and ethnic minorities are less likely to receive goal-concordant care, participate in advance care planning, and have access to palliative care or hospice.^2-4 They are more likely to die in a hospital, have inadequate pain and symptom management, and experience poor provider-patient communication.^5-7 Other contributing factors include lack of knowledge of hospice and palliative care services, mistrust of the health care system, spiritual and religious beliefs, provider bias, and cultural beliefs.¹

Despite these disparities, interventions have had limited success,⁸ and there are gaps in content, methods, and inclusion of racial and ethnic groups within palliative care research.⁷

Efforts to improve health equity for people with serious illness have been identified as an “urgent call to action.”¹

A few recommended actionable items include delivering culturally competent care by ensuring availability of culturally and linguistically appropriate materials and information, education, and training for providers, and practicing cultural humility; contributing to workforce diversity by hiring and training diverse staff; and partnering with community organizations to build trust and to facilitate dissemination of culturally and linguistically appropriate information to providers in caring for their diverse patient populations.^1,9

One of the first steps identified is to recognize that there is a problem and prioritize efforts to understand its “multifaceted nature.”¹⁰ This should occur on multiple levels including the individual (patient and caregiver), interpersonal (health care team), organization, and policy levels,¹⁰ and be done through clinical, research, and educational platforms.

At the interpersonal level, we as the health care team can start by reflecting, acknowledging biases, seeking educational and training opportunities on cross-cultural interactions, learning about cultural and spiritual beliefs, and developing skills in culturally and linguistically appropriate communication regarding goals of care and advance care planning.^1,10

For those seeking resources, organizations such as the Center to Advance Palliative Care’s Project Equity and the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine have ongoing efforts to educate and train physicians and health care professionals to improve and understand health equity in palliative care by providing resource portals, toolkits, training, and general information.

It is imperative to move forward in actionable ways to address not only racial and ethnic disparities, but advance equity in serious illness care for health care organizations, providers, and policymakers.¹

Dr. Kang is in the division of gerontology and geriatric medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle.

References

1. Barrett NJ et al. N C Med J. 2020;81:254-6.

2. Johnson KS et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59:732-7.

3. Sharma RK et al. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3802-8.

4. Muni S et al. Chest. 2011;139:1025-33.

5. Anderson KO et al. J Pain. 2009;10:1187-204.

6. Mack JW et al. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:1533-40.

7. Johnson KS. J Palliat Med. 2013;16(11):1329-34.

8. Brown CE et al. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2021;63(5):e465-e71.

9. Chambers B. Center for Advancing Palliative Care. July 9, 2020.

10. Koffman J et al. BMC Palliat Care. 2023;22(64):1-3.