Diversity in Medicine

Traction alopecia (TA) is a common type of alopecia that ultimately can result in permanent hair loss. It often is caused or worsened by repetitive and prolonged hairstyling practices such as tight ponytails, braids, or locs, or use of wigs or weaves.¹ Use of headwear, as in certain religious or ethnic groups, also can be contributory.² Individuals participating in or training for occupations involving military service or ballet are at risk for TA due to hairstyling-specific policies. Early stages of TA are reversible with proper treatment and avoidance of exacerbating factors, emphasizing the importance of prompt recognition.³

Epidemiology

Data on the true prevalence of TA are lacking. It can occur in individuals of any race or any hair type. However, it is most common in women of African descent, affecting approximately one-third of this population.⁴ Other commonly affected groups include ballerinas and active-duty service members due to tight ponytails and buns, as well as the Sikh population due to the use of turbans as a part of their religious practice.^2,5,6

Traction alopecia also impacts children, particularly those of African descent. A 2007 study of schoolchildren in South Africa determined that more than 17% of young African girls had evidence of TA—even some as young as 6 years of age.⁷

Traction alopecia can be caused or exacerbated by the use of hair clips and bobby pins that aid holding styles in place.⁸ Hair shaft morphology may contribute to the risk for TA, with more tightly coiled hair types being more susceptible.⁸ Variables such as use of chemical relaxers also increase the risk for disease, especially when combined with high-tension styling methods such as braids.⁹

Key clinical features

Patients with TA clinically present with hair loss and breakage in areas with tension, most commonly the marginal areas of the scalp as well as the frontal hairline and temporal scalp. Hair loss can result in a “fringe sign,” in which a patient may have preservation of a thin line of hairs at the frontal aspect of the hairline with a band of hair loss behind.¹⁰ This presentation may be used to differentiate TA from other forms of alopecia, including frontal fibrosing alopecia and female pattern hair loss. When the hair loss is not marginal, it may mimic other forms of patchy hair loss including alopecia areata and trichotillomania. Other clinical findings in TA may include broken hairs, pustules, and follicular papules.¹⁰ Patients also may describe symptoms such as scalp tenderness with specific hairstyles or headaches,¹¹ or they may be completely asymptomatic.

Trichoscopy can be helpful in guiding diagnosis and treatment. Patients with TA often have perifollicular erythema and hair casts (cylindrical structures that encircle the proximal hair shafts) in the earlier stages of the disease, with eventual loss of follicular ostia in the later stages.^10,12 Hair casts also may indicate ongoing traction.¹² The flambeau sign—white tracks seen on trichoscopy in the direction the hair is pulled—resembles a lit torch.¹³

Early-stage TA can be reversed by avoiding hair tension. However, patients may not be amenable to this due to personal hairstyling preferences, job duties, or religious practices. Treatment with topical or intralesional steroids or even oral antibiotics such as doxycycline for its anti-inflammatory ability may result in regrowth of lost hair if the follicles are not permanently lost and exacerbating factors are avoided.^3,14 Both topical and oral minoxidil have been used with success, with minoxidil thought to increase hair density by extending the anagen (growth) phase of hair follicles.^3,15 Culturally sensitive patient counseling on the condition and potential exacerbating factors is critical.¹⁶

At later stages of the disease—after loss of follicular ostia has occurred—surgical interventions should be considered,¹⁷ such as hair transplantation, which can be successful but remains a technical challenge due to variability in hair shaft curvature.¹⁸ Additionally, the cost of the procedure can limit use, and some patients may not be optimal candidates due to the extent of their hair loss. Traction alopecia may not be the only hair loss condition present. Examining the scalp is important even if the chief area of concern is the marginal scalp.

Health disparity highlight

Prevention, early identification, and treatment initiated in a timely fashion are crucial to prevent permanent hair loss. There are added societal and cultural pressures that impact hairstyle and hair care practices, especially for those with tightly coiled hair.¹⁹ Historically, tightly coiled hair has been unfairly viewed as “unprofessional,” “unkempt,” and a challenge to “manage” by some. Thus, heat, chemical relaxers, and tight hairstyles holding hair in one position have been used to straighten the hair permanently or temporarily or to keep it maintained in a style that did not necessitate excessive manipulation—often contributing to further tension on the hair.

Military service branches have evaluated and changed some hair-related policies to reflect the diverse hair types of military personnel.²⁰ The CROWN Act (www.thecrownact.com/about)—“Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair”—is a model law passed by 26 states that prohibits race-based hair discrimination, which is the denial of employment and educational opportunities because of hair texture. Although the law has not been passed in every state, it may help individuals with tightly coiled hair to embrace natural hairstyles. However, even hairstyles with one’s own natural curl pattern can contribute to tension and thus potential development of TA.

Traction alopecia (TA) is a common type of alopecia that ultimately can result in permanent hair loss. It often is caused or worsened by repetitive and prolonged hairstyling practices such as tight ponytails, braids, or locs, or use of wigs or weaves.¹ Use of headwear, as in certain religious or ethnic groups, also can be contributory.² Individuals participating in or training for occupations involving military service or ballet are at risk for TA due to hairstyling-specific policies. Early stages of TA are reversible with proper treatment and avoidance of exacerbating factors, emphasizing the importance of prompt recognition.³

Epidemiology

Data on the true prevalence of TA are lacking. It can occur in individuals of any race or any hair type. However, it is most common in women of African descent, affecting approximately one-third of this population.⁴ Other commonly affected groups include ballerinas and active-duty service members due to tight ponytails and buns, as well as the Sikh population due to the use of turbans as a part of their religious practice.^2,5,6

Traction alopecia also impacts children, particularly those of African descent. A 2007 study of schoolchildren in South Africa determined that more than 17% of young African girls had evidence of TA—even some as young as 6 years of age.⁷

Traction alopecia can be caused or exacerbated by the use of hair clips and bobby pins that aid holding styles in place.⁸ Hair shaft morphology may contribute to the risk for TA, with more tightly coiled hair types being more susceptible.⁸ Variables such as use of chemical relaxers also increase the risk for disease, especially when combined with high-tension styling methods such as braids.⁹

Key clinical features

Patients with TA clinically present with hair loss and breakage in areas with tension, most commonly the marginal areas of the scalp as well as the frontal hairline and temporal scalp. Hair loss can result in a “fringe sign,” in which a patient may have preservation of a thin line of hairs at the frontal aspect of the hairline with a band of hair loss behind.¹⁰ This presentation may be used to differentiate TA from other forms of alopecia, including frontal fibrosing alopecia and female pattern hair loss. When the hair loss is not marginal, it may mimic other forms of patchy hair loss including alopecia areata and trichotillomania. Other clinical findings in TA may include broken hairs, pustules, and follicular papules.¹⁰ Patients also may describe symptoms such as scalp tenderness with specific hairstyles or headaches,¹¹ or they may be completely asymptomatic.

Trichoscopy can be helpful in guiding diagnosis and treatment. Patients with TA often have perifollicular erythema and hair casts (cylindrical structures that encircle the proximal hair shafts) in the earlier stages of the disease, with eventual loss of follicular ostia in the later stages.^10,12 Hair casts also may indicate ongoing traction.¹² The flambeau sign—white tracks seen on trichoscopy in the direction the hair is pulled—resembles a lit torch.¹³

Early-stage TA can be reversed by avoiding hair tension. However, patients may not be amenable to this due to personal hairstyling preferences, job duties, or religious practices. Treatment with topical or intralesional steroids or even oral antibiotics such as doxycycline for its anti-inflammatory ability may result in regrowth of lost hair if the follicles are not permanently lost and exacerbating factors are avoided.^3,14 Both topical and oral minoxidil have been used with success, with minoxidil thought to increase hair density by extending the anagen (growth) phase of hair follicles.^3,15 Culturally sensitive patient counseling on the condition and potential exacerbating factors is critical.¹⁶

At later stages of the disease—after loss of follicular ostia has occurred—surgical interventions should be considered,¹⁷ such as hair transplantation, which can be successful but remains a technical challenge due to variability in hair shaft curvature.¹⁸ Additionally, the cost of the procedure can limit use, and some patients may not be optimal candidates due to the extent of their hair loss. Traction alopecia may not be the only hair loss condition present. Examining the scalp is important even if the chief area of concern is the marginal scalp.

Health disparity highlight

Prevention, early identification, and treatment initiated in a timely fashion are crucial to prevent permanent hair loss. There are added societal and cultural pressures that impact hairstyle and hair care practices, especially for those with tightly coiled hair.¹⁹ Historically, tightly coiled hair has been unfairly viewed as “unprofessional,” “unkempt,” and a challenge to “manage” by some. Thus, heat, chemical relaxers, and tight hairstyles holding hair in one position have been used to straighten the hair permanently or temporarily or to keep it maintained in a style that did not necessitate excessive manipulation—often contributing to further tension on the hair.

Military service branches have evaluated and changed some hair-related policies to reflect the diverse hair types of military personnel.²⁰ The CROWN Act (www.thecrownact.com/about)—“Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair”—is a model law passed by 26 states that prohibits race-based hair discrimination, which is the denial of employment and educational opportunities because of hair texture. Although the law has not been passed in every state, it may help individuals with tightly coiled hair to embrace natural hairstyles. However, even hairstyles with one’s own natural curl pattern can contribute to tension and thus potential development of TA.

Traction alopecia (TA) is a common type of alopecia that ultimately can result in permanent hair loss. It often is caused or worsened by repetitive and prolonged hairstyling practices such as tight ponytails, braids, or locs, or use of wigs or weaves.¹ Use of headwear, as in certain religious or ethnic groups, also can be contributory.² Individuals participating in or training for occupations involving military service or ballet are at risk for TA due to hairstyling-specific policies. Early stages of TA are reversible with proper treatment and avoidance of exacerbating factors, emphasizing the importance of prompt recognition.³

Epidemiology

Data on the true prevalence of TA are lacking. It can occur in individuals of any race or any hair type. However, it is most common in women of African descent, affecting approximately one-third of this population.⁴ Other commonly affected groups include ballerinas and active-duty service members due to tight ponytails and buns, as well as the Sikh population due to the use of turbans as a part of their religious practice.^2,5,6

Traction alopecia also impacts children, particularly those of African descent. A 2007 study of schoolchildren in South Africa determined that more than 17% of young African girls had evidence of TA—even some as young as 6 years of age.⁷

Traction alopecia can be caused or exacerbated by the use of hair clips and bobby pins that aid holding styles in place.⁸ Hair shaft morphology may contribute to the risk for TA, with more tightly coiled hair types being more susceptible.⁸ Variables such as use of chemical relaxers also increase the risk for disease, especially when combined with high-tension styling methods such as braids.⁹

Key clinical features

Patients with TA clinically present with hair loss and breakage in areas with tension, most commonly the marginal areas of the scalp as well as the frontal hairline and temporal scalp. Hair loss can result in a “fringe sign,” in which a patient may have preservation of a thin line of hairs at the frontal aspect of the hairline with a band of hair loss behind.¹⁰ This presentation may be used to differentiate TA from other forms of alopecia, including frontal fibrosing alopecia and female pattern hair loss. When the hair loss is not marginal, it may mimic other forms of patchy hair loss including alopecia areata and trichotillomania. Other clinical findings in TA may include broken hairs, pustules, and follicular papules.¹⁰ Patients also may describe symptoms such as scalp tenderness with specific hairstyles or headaches,¹¹ or they may be completely asymptomatic.

Trichoscopy can be helpful in guiding diagnosis and treatment. Patients with TA often have perifollicular erythema and hair casts (cylindrical structures that encircle the proximal hair shafts) in the earlier stages of the disease, with eventual loss of follicular ostia in the later stages.^10,12 Hair casts also may indicate ongoing traction.¹² The flambeau sign—white tracks seen on trichoscopy in the direction the hair is pulled—resembles a lit torch.¹³

Early-stage TA can be reversed by avoiding hair tension. However, patients may not be amenable to this due to personal hairstyling preferences, job duties, or religious practices. Treatment with topical or intralesional steroids or even oral antibiotics such as doxycycline for its anti-inflammatory ability may result in regrowth of lost hair if the follicles are not permanently lost and exacerbating factors are avoided.^3,14 Both topical and oral minoxidil have been used with success, with minoxidil thought to increase hair density by extending the anagen (growth) phase of hair follicles.^3,15 Culturally sensitive patient counseling on the condition and potential exacerbating factors is critical.¹⁶

At later stages of the disease—after loss of follicular ostia has occurred—surgical interventions should be considered,¹⁷ such as hair transplantation, which can be successful but remains a technical challenge due to variability in hair shaft curvature.¹⁸ Additionally, the cost of the procedure can limit use, and some patients may not be optimal candidates due to the extent of their hair loss. Traction alopecia may not be the only hair loss condition present. Examining the scalp is important even if the chief area of concern is the marginal scalp.

Health disparity highlight

Prevention, early identification, and treatment initiated in a timely fashion are crucial to prevent permanent hair loss. There are added societal and cultural pressures that impact hairstyle and hair care practices, especially for those with tightly coiled hair.¹⁹ Historically, tightly coiled hair has been unfairly viewed as “unprofessional,” “unkempt,” and a challenge to “manage” by some. Thus, heat, chemical relaxers, and tight hairstyles holding hair in one position have been used to straighten the hair permanently or temporarily or to keep it maintained in a style that did not necessitate excessive manipulation—often contributing to further tension on the hair.

Military service branches have evaluated and changed some hair-related policies to reflect the diverse hair types of military personnel.²⁰ The CROWN Act (www.thecrownact.com/about)—“Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair”—is a model law passed by 26 states that prohibits race-based hair discrimination, which is the denial of employment and educational opportunities because of hair texture. Although the law has not been passed in every state, it may help individuals with tightly coiled hair to embrace natural hairstyles. However, even hairstyles with one’s own natural curl pattern can contribute to tension and thus potential development of TA.

Although individuals with skin of color (SoC) are expected to become at least half of the US population by the year 2044, there remains a paucity of education and exposure to treatment of patients with SoC at many dermatology residency programs across the country.¹ One way to improve SoC education has been the formation of specialized clinics, centers, and programs. The first SoC center (SoCC) was established in 1999 at Mount Sinai–St. Luke’s Roosevelt in New York, New York²; since then, at least 13 additional formal SoCCs or SoC specialty clinics (SoCSCs) at US academic dermatology programs have been established.

Skin of color centers serve several important purposes: they improve dermatologic care in patients with SoC, increase research efforts focused on SoC dermatologic conditions, and educate dermatology resident and fellow trainees about SoC. Improving dermatologic care of patients with SoC in the United States is important in providing equitable health care and improving health disparities. Studies have shown that patient-physician racial and cultural concordance can positively impact patient care, increase patient trust and rapport, and improve patient-physician communication, and it can even influence patient decision-making to seek care.^3,4 Unfortunately, even though the US population continues to diversify, the racial/ethnic backgrounds of dermatologists do not parallel this trend; Hispanic and Black physicians comprise 18.9% and 13.6% of the general population, respectively, but represent only 4.2% and 3.0% of dermatologists, respectively.^5-7 This deficit is mirrored by resident and faculty representation, with Black and Latino representation ranging from 3% to 7%.^8-10

Many SoCC’s engage in research focused on dermatologic conditions affecting patients with SoC, which is vital to improving the dermatologic care in this underserved population. Despite increasing recognition of the importance of SoC research, there remains a paucity of clinical trials and research specifically focused on or demonstrating equitable representation of SoC.^11,12

The education and training of future dermatologists is another important area that can be improved by SoCCs. A 2008 study involving 63 chief residents showed that approximately half (52.4% [33/63]) of graduating dermatology residents reported receiving SoC-specific didactics, sessions, or lectures, and 30.2% (19/63) reported having a dedicated rotation where they gained specific experience treating patients with SoC.¹³ A later study in 2022 (N=125) found that 63.2% of graduating dermatology residents reported receiving SoC-specific didactics, sessions, or lectures, and only 11.2% reported having a dedicated rotation where they gained experience treating patients with SoC.¹⁴ These findings suggest that in the last 14 years, formal SoC education—specifically SoC clinical training—has not increased sufficiently.

We conducted a cross-sectional survey study to provide an in-depth analysis of SoCCs and SoCSCs in the United States, including their patient care focus, research, and program diversity.

Methods

We conducted an investigator-initiated, multicenter, cross-sectional survey study of all SoCCs in the United States and their respective academic residency programs. Fifteen formal SoCCs and/or SoCSCs were identified by dermatology program websites and an article by Tull et al² on the state of ethnic skin centers. All programs and centers identified were associated with a dermatology residency program accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education.

A 42-item questionnaire was sent via email to the directors of these centers and clinics with the intent to collect descriptive information about each of the SoCCs, the diversity of the faculty and residents of the associated dermatology department, current research and funding, diversity and inclusion initiatives, and trainee education from March through April 2020. Data were analyzed using Excel and SPSS statistical software to obtain descriptive statistics including the mean value numeric trends across programs.

This study underwent expedited review and was approved by the University of Southern California (Los Angeles, California) institutional review board (IRB #HS-20-00113). Patient consent was not applicable, as no information was collected about patients.

Results

Fourteen directors from SoCCs/SoCSCs completed the questionnaire (93.3% response rate). Most centers were located in urban areas (12/14 [85.71%]), except for 2 in rural or suburban settings (Table). Most of the SoCCs/SoCSCs were located in the South (5/14 [35.71%]), followed by the Northeast (4/14 [28.57%]), West (3/14 [21.43%]), and Midwest (2/14 [14.29%])(Table). Six (42.86%) of the programs had a SoCSC, 3 (21.43%) had a formal SoCC, and 5 (35.71%) had both. Across all centers, the most common population seen and treated was Black/African American followed by Hispanic/Latino and Asian, respectively. The most commonly seen dermatologic conditions were acne, pigmentary disorders, alopecia, and atopic dermatitis (Figure). The most common cosmetic practice performed for patients with SoC was dermatosis papulosa nigra/seborrheic keratosis removal, followed by laser treatments, skin tag removal, chemical peels, and neuromodulator injections, respectively.

Faculty and Resident Demographics and Areas of Focus—The demographics and diversity of the dermatology faculty and residents at each individual institution also were assessed. The average number of full-time faculty at each institution was 19.4 (range, 2–48), while the average number of full-time faculty who identified as underrepresented in medicine (URiM) was 2.1 (range, 0–5). The average number of residents at each institution was 17.1 (range, 10–31), while the average number of URiM residents was 1.7 (range, 1–3).

Comment

As the number of SoCCs/SoCSCs in the United States continues to grow, it is important to highlight their programmatic, research, and educational accomplishments to show the benefits of such programs, including their ability to increase access to culturally competent and inclusive care for diverse patient populations. One study found that nearly 92% of patients in the United States seen by dermatologists are White.¹⁵ Although studies have shown that Hispanic/Latino and Black patients are less likely to seek care from a dermatologist,^16,17 there is no indication that these patients have a lesser need for such specialty care. Additionally, outcomes of common dermatologic conditions often are poorer in SoC populations.¹⁵ The dermatologists leading SoCCs/SoCSCs are actively working to reverse these trends, with Black and Hispanic/Latino patients representing the majority of their patients.

Faculty and Resident Demographics and Areas of Focus—Although there are increased diversity efforts in dermatology and the medical profession more broadly, there still is much work to be done. While individuals with SoC now comprise more than 35% of the US population, only 12% of dermatology residents and 6% of academic dermatology faculty identify as either Black or Hispanic/Latino.^5,8,10 These numbers are even more discouraging when considering other URiM racial groups such as Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiians or Native American/American Indians who represent 0% and 0.1% of dermatology faculty, respectively.^8,10 Academic programs with SoCCs/SoCSCs are working to create a space in which these discrepancies in representation can begin to be addressed. Compared to the national 6.8% rate of URiM faculty at academic institutions, those with SoCCs/SoCSCs report closer to 10% of faculty identifying as URiM.¹⁸ Moreover, almost all programs had faculty specialized in at least 1 condition that predominantly affects patients with SoC. This is of critical importance, as the conditions that most commonly affect SoC populations—such as CCCA, hidradenitis suppurativa, and cutaneous lupus—often are understudied, underfunded, underdiagnosed, and undertreated.^19-22

Faculty SoC Research—An important step in narrowing the knowledge gap and improving health care disparities in patients with SoC is to increase SoC research and/or to increase the representation of patients with SoC in research studies. In a 2021 study, a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms race/­ethnicity, dyschromia, atopic dermatitis, and acne was conducted to investigate publications pertaining to the top 3 most common chief concerns in patients with SoC. Only 1.6% of studies analyzed (N=74,941) had a specific focus on SoC.¹² A similar study found that among the top 5 ­dermatology-focused research journals, only 3.4% of all research (N=11,003) on the top 3 most common chief concerns in patients with SOC was conducted in patients with SoC.²³ Research efforts focused on dermatologic issues that affect patients with SoC are a priority at SoCCs/SoCSCs. In our study, all respondents indicated that they had at least 1 ongoing observational study; the most commonly studied conditions were CCCA, keloids/hypertrophic scarring, and atopic dermatitis, all of which are conditions that either occur in high frequency or primarily occur in SoC. Only 35.71% (5/14) of respondents had active clinical trials related to SoC, and only 21.43% (3/14) and 28.57% (4/14) had internal and external funding, respectively. Although research efforts are a priority at SoCCs/SoCSCs, our survey study highlights the continued paucity of formal clinical trials as well as funding for SoC-focused research. Improved research efforts for SoC must address these deficits in funding, academic support, and other resources.

It also is of great importance for institutions to provide support for trainees wanting to pursue SoC research. Encouragingly, more than half (57.14%) of SoCCs/SoCSCs have developed formal research opportunities for residents, and nearly 64.29% have formal opportunities for medical students. These efforts to provide early experiences in SoC research are especially impactful by cultivating interest in working with populations with SoC and hopefully inspiring future dermatologists to engage in further SoC research.

SoC Education and Diversity Initiatives—Although it is important to increase representation of URiM physicians in dermatology and to train more SoC specialists, it is imperative that all dermatologists feel comfortable recognizing and treating dermatologic conditions in patients of all skin tones and all racial/ethnic backgrounds; however, many studies suggest that residents not only lack formal didactics and education in SoC, but even more unsettling, they also lack confidence in treating SoC.^13,24 However, one study showed that this can be changed; Mhlaba et al²⁵ assessed a SoC curriculum for dermatology residents, and indeed all of the residents indicated that the curriculum improved their ability to treat SoC patients. This deficit in dermatology residency training is specifically addressed by SoCCs/SoCSCs. In our study, all respondents indicated that residents rotate through their centers. Moreover, our study found that most of the academic institutions with SoCCs/SoCSCs provide a SoC didactic curriculum for residents, and almost all of the programs invited SoC specialists to give guest lectures. This is in contrast to a 2022 study showing that 63.2% (N=125) of graduating dermatology residents reported receiving SoC-specific didactics, sessions, or lectures.¹⁴ These findings highlight the critical role that SoCCs/SoCSCs can provide in dermatology residency training.

Although SoCCs/SoCSCs have made considerable progress, there is still much room for improvement. Namely, only half of the respondents in our study indicated that their program has formally incorporated a SoC textbook into resident education (eTable 3). Representation of SoC in the textbooks that dermatology residents use is critically important because these images form the foundation of the morphologic aids of diagnosis. Numerous studies have analyzed popular dermatologic textbooks used by residency programs nationwide, finding the number of SoC images across dermatology textbooks ranging from 4% to 18%.^26,27 The use of standard dermatology textbooks is not enough to train residents to be competent in diagnosing and treating patients with SoC. There should be a concerted effort across the field of dermatology to encourage the development of a SoC educational curriculum at every academic dermatology program, including SoC textbooks, Kodachromes, and online/electronic resources.

Efforts to increase diversity in dermatology and dermatologic training should start in medical school preclinical curriculums and medical student rotations. Although our survey did not assess current medical student curricula, the benefits of academic institutions with SoCCs/SoCSCs are highlighted by the ability for both home and visiting medical students to rotate through the centers and gain early exposure to SoC dermatology. Most of the programs even provide scholarships and/or grants for URiM students to help fund their rotations, which is of critical importance considering the mounting data that the financial burden of visiting rotations disproportionately affects URiM students.²⁸

Study Limitations—Although we did an extensive search and believe to have correctly identified all 15 formal SoCCs/SoCSCs with a high response rate (93.3%), there are institutions that do not have formalized SoCCs/SoCSCs but are known to serve SoC populations. Likewise, there are private dermatology practices not associated with academic centers that have SoC specialists and positively contribute to SoC patient care, research, and education that were not included in this study. Additionally, the data for this study were collected in 2020 and analyzed in 2021, so it is possible that not all SoCCs, divisions, or clinics were included in this study, particularly if established after 2021.

Conclusion

As the United States continues to diversify, the proportion of patients with SoC will continue to grow, and it is imperative that this racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity is reflected in the dermatology workforce as well as research and training. The current deficits in medical training related to SoC populations and the importance for patients with SoC to find dermatologists who can appropriately treat them is well known.²⁹ Skin of color centers/SoCSCs strive to increase access to care for patients with SoC, improve cultural competency, promote diversity among faculty and trainees, and encourage SoC research and education at all levels. We urge academic dermatology training programs to make SoC education, research, and patient care a departmental priority. Important first steps include departmental diversification at all levels, incorporating SoC into curricula for residents, providing and securing funding for SoC research, and supporting the establishment of more formal SoCCs and/or SoCSCs to help reduce dermatologic health care disparities among patients with SoC and improve health equity.

Appendix

Although individuals with skin of color (SoC) are expected to become at least half of the US population by the year 2044, there remains a paucity of education and exposure to treatment of patients with SoC at many dermatology residency programs across the country.¹ One way to improve SoC education has been the formation of specialized clinics, centers, and programs. The first SoC center (SoCC) was established in 1999 at Mount Sinai–St. Luke’s Roosevelt in New York, New York²; since then, at least 13 additional formal SoCCs or SoC specialty clinics (SoCSCs) at US academic dermatology programs have been established.

Skin of color centers serve several important purposes: they improve dermatologic care in patients with SoC, increase research efforts focused on SoC dermatologic conditions, and educate dermatology resident and fellow trainees about SoC. Improving dermatologic care of patients with SoC in the United States is important in providing equitable health care and improving health disparities. Studies have shown that patient-physician racial and cultural concordance can positively impact patient care, increase patient trust and rapport, and improve patient-physician communication, and it can even influence patient decision-making to seek care.^3,4 Unfortunately, even though the US population continues to diversify, the racial/ethnic backgrounds of dermatologists do not parallel this trend; Hispanic and Black physicians comprise 18.9% and 13.6% of the general population, respectively, but represent only 4.2% and 3.0% of dermatologists, respectively.^5-7 This deficit is mirrored by resident and faculty representation, with Black and Latino representation ranging from 3% to 7%.^8-10

Many SoCC’s engage in research focused on dermatologic conditions affecting patients with SoC, which is vital to improving the dermatologic care in this underserved population. Despite increasing recognition of the importance of SoC research, there remains a paucity of clinical trials and research specifically focused on or demonstrating equitable representation of SoC.^11,12

The education and training of future dermatologists is another important area that can be improved by SoCCs. A 2008 study involving 63 chief residents showed that approximately half (52.4% [33/63]) of graduating dermatology residents reported receiving SoC-specific didactics, sessions, or lectures, and 30.2% (19/63) reported having a dedicated rotation where they gained specific experience treating patients with SoC.¹³ A later study in 2022 (N=125) found that 63.2% of graduating dermatology residents reported receiving SoC-specific didactics, sessions, or lectures, and only 11.2% reported having a dedicated rotation where they gained experience treating patients with SoC.¹⁴ These findings suggest that in the last 14 years, formal SoC education—specifically SoC clinical training—has not increased sufficiently.

We conducted a cross-sectional survey study to provide an in-depth analysis of SoCCs and SoCSCs in the United States, including their patient care focus, research, and program diversity.

Methods

We conducted an investigator-initiated, multicenter, cross-sectional survey study of all SoCCs in the United States and their respective academic residency programs. Fifteen formal SoCCs and/or SoCSCs were identified by dermatology program websites and an article by Tull et al² on the state of ethnic skin centers. All programs and centers identified were associated with a dermatology residency program accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education.

A 42-item questionnaire was sent via email to the directors of these centers and clinics with the intent to collect descriptive information about each of the SoCCs, the diversity of the faculty and residents of the associated dermatology department, current research and funding, diversity and inclusion initiatives, and trainee education from March through April 2020. Data were analyzed using Excel and SPSS statistical software to obtain descriptive statistics including the mean value numeric trends across programs.

This study underwent expedited review and was approved by the University of Southern California (Los Angeles, California) institutional review board (IRB #HS-20-00113). Patient consent was not applicable, as no information was collected about patients.

Results

Fourteen directors from SoCCs/SoCSCs completed the questionnaire (93.3% response rate). Most centers were located in urban areas (12/14 [85.71%]), except for 2 in rural or suburban settings (Table). Most of the SoCCs/SoCSCs were located in the South (5/14 [35.71%]), followed by the Northeast (4/14 [28.57%]), West (3/14 [21.43%]), and Midwest (2/14 [14.29%])(Table). Six (42.86%) of the programs had a SoCSC, 3 (21.43%) had a formal SoCC, and 5 (35.71%) had both. Across all centers, the most common population seen and treated was Black/African American followed by Hispanic/Latino and Asian, respectively. The most commonly seen dermatologic conditions were acne, pigmentary disorders, alopecia, and atopic dermatitis (Figure). The most common cosmetic practice performed for patients with SoC was dermatosis papulosa nigra/seborrheic keratosis removal, followed by laser treatments, skin tag removal, chemical peels, and neuromodulator injections, respectively.

Faculty and Resident Demographics and Areas of Focus—The demographics and diversity of the dermatology faculty and residents at each individual institution also were assessed. The average number of full-time faculty at each institution was 19.4 (range, 2–48), while the average number of full-time faculty who identified as underrepresented in medicine (URiM) was 2.1 (range, 0–5). The average number of residents at each institution was 17.1 (range, 10–31), while the average number of URiM residents was 1.7 (range, 1–3).

Comment

As the number of SoCCs/SoCSCs in the United States continues to grow, it is important to highlight their programmatic, research, and educational accomplishments to show the benefits of such programs, including their ability to increase access to culturally competent and inclusive care for diverse patient populations. One study found that nearly 92% of patients in the United States seen by dermatologists are White.¹⁵ Although studies have shown that Hispanic/Latino and Black patients are less likely to seek care from a dermatologist,^16,17 there is no indication that these patients have a lesser need for such specialty care. Additionally, outcomes of common dermatologic conditions often are poorer in SoC populations.¹⁵ The dermatologists leading SoCCs/SoCSCs are actively working to reverse these trends, with Black and Hispanic/Latino patients representing the majority of their patients.

Faculty and Resident Demographics and Areas of Focus—Although there are increased diversity efforts in dermatology and the medical profession more broadly, there still is much work to be done. While individuals with SoC now comprise more than 35% of the US population, only 12% of dermatology residents and 6% of academic dermatology faculty identify as either Black or Hispanic/Latino.^5,8,10 These numbers are even more discouraging when considering other URiM racial groups such as Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiians or Native American/American Indians who represent 0% and 0.1% of dermatology faculty, respectively.^8,10 Academic programs with SoCCs/SoCSCs are working to create a space in which these discrepancies in representation can begin to be addressed. Compared to the national 6.8% rate of URiM faculty at academic institutions, those with SoCCs/SoCSCs report closer to 10% of faculty identifying as URiM.¹⁸ Moreover, almost all programs had faculty specialized in at least 1 condition that predominantly affects patients with SoC. This is of critical importance, as the conditions that most commonly affect SoC populations—such as CCCA, hidradenitis suppurativa, and cutaneous lupus—often are understudied, underfunded, underdiagnosed, and undertreated.^19-22

Faculty SoC Research—An important step in narrowing the knowledge gap and improving health care disparities in patients with SoC is to increase SoC research and/or to increase the representation of patients with SoC in research studies. In a 2021 study, a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms race/­ethnicity, dyschromia, atopic dermatitis, and acne was conducted to investigate publications pertaining to the top 3 most common chief concerns in patients with SoC. Only 1.6% of studies analyzed (N=74,941) had a specific focus on SoC.¹² A similar study found that among the top 5 ­dermatology-focused research journals, only 3.4% of all research (N=11,003) on the top 3 most common chief concerns in patients with SOC was conducted in patients with SoC.²³ Research efforts focused on dermatologic issues that affect patients with SoC are a priority at SoCCs/SoCSCs. In our study, all respondents indicated that they had at least 1 ongoing observational study; the most commonly studied conditions were CCCA, keloids/hypertrophic scarring, and atopic dermatitis, all of which are conditions that either occur in high frequency or primarily occur in SoC. Only 35.71% (5/14) of respondents had active clinical trials related to SoC, and only 21.43% (3/14) and 28.57% (4/14) had internal and external funding, respectively. Although research efforts are a priority at SoCCs/SoCSCs, our survey study highlights the continued paucity of formal clinical trials as well as funding for SoC-focused research. Improved research efforts for SoC must address these deficits in funding, academic support, and other resources.

It also is of great importance for institutions to provide support for trainees wanting to pursue SoC research. Encouragingly, more than half (57.14%) of SoCCs/SoCSCs have developed formal research opportunities for residents, and nearly 64.29% have formal opportunities for medical students. These efforts to provide early experiences in SoC research are especially impactful by cultivating interest in working with populations with SoC and hopefully inspiring future dermatologists to engage in further SoC research.

SoC Education and Diversity Initiatives—Although it is important to increase representation of URiM physicians in dermatology and to train more SoC specialists, it is imperative that all dermatologists feel comfortable recognizing and treating dermatologic conditions in patients of all skin tones and all racial/ethnic backgrounds; however, many studies suggest that residents not only lack formal didactics and education in SoC, but even more unsettling, they also lack confidence in treating SoC.^13,24 However, one study showed that this can be changed; Mhlaba et al²⁵ assessed a SoC curriculum for dermatology residents, and indeed all of the residents indicated that the curriculum improved their ability to treat SoC patients. This deficit in dermatology residency training is specifically addressed by SoCCs/SoCSCs. In our study, all respondents indicated that residents rotate through their centers. Moreover, our study found that most of the academic institutions with SoCCs/SoCSCs provide a SoC didactic curriculum for residents, and almost all of the programs invited SoC specialists to give guest lectures. This is in contrast to a 2022 study showing that 63.2% (N=125) of graduating dermatology residents reported receiving SoC-specific didactics, sessions, or lectures.¹⁴ These findings highlight the critical role that SoCCs/SoCSCs can provide in dermatology residency training.

Although SoCCs/SoCSCs have made considerable progress, there is still much room for improvement. Namely, only half of the respondents in our study indicated that their program has formally incorporated a SoC textbook into resident education (eTable 3). Representation of SoC in the textbooks that dermatology residents use is critically important because these images form the foundation of the morphologic aids of diagnosis. Numerous studies have analyzed popular dermatologic textbooks used by residency programs nationwide, finding the number of SoC images across dermatology textbooks ranging from 4% to 18%.^26,27 The use of standard dermatology textbooks is not enough to train residents to be competent in diagnosing and treating patients with SoC. There should be a concerted effort across the field of dermatology to encourage the development of a SoC educational curriculum at every academic dermatology program, including SoC textbooks, Kodachromes, and online/electronic resources.

Efforts to increase diversity in dermatology and dermatologic training should start in medical school preclinical curriculums and medical student rotations. Although our survey did not assess current medical student curricula, the benefits of academic institutions with SoCCs/SoCSCs are highlighted by the ability for both home and visiting medical students to rotate through the centers and gain early exposure to SoC dermatology. Most of the programs even provide scholarships and/or grants for URiM students to help fund their rotations, which is of critical importance considering the mounting data that the financial burden of visiting rotations disproportionately affects URiM students.²⁸

Study Limitations—Although we did an extensive search and believe to have correctly identified all 15 formal SoCCs/SoCSCs with a high response rate (93.3%), there are institutions that do not have formalized SoCCs/SoCSCs but are known to serve SoC populations. Likewise, there are private dermatology practices not associated with academic centers that have SoC specialists and positively contribute to SoC patient care, research, and education that were not included in this study. Additionally, the data for this study were collected in 2020 and analyzed in 2021, so it is possible that not all SoCCs, divisions, or clinics were included in this study, particularly if established after 2021.

Conclusion

As the United States continues to diversify, the proportion of patients with SoC will continue to grow, and it is imperative that this racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity is reflected in the dermatology workforce as well as research and training. The current deficits in medical training related to SoC populations and the importance for patients with SoC to find dermatologists who can appropriately treat them is well known.²⁹ Skin of color centers/SoCSCs strive to increase access to care for patients with SoC, improve cultural competency, promote diversity among faculty and trainees, and encourage SoC research and education at all levels. We urge academic dermatology training programs to make SoC education, research, and patient care a departmental priority. Important first steps include departmental diversification at all levels, incorporating SoC into curricula for residents, providing and securing funding for SoC research, and supporting the establishment of more formal SoCCs and/or SoCSCs to help reduce dermatologic health care disparities among patients with SoC and improve health equity.

Appendix

Although individuals with skin of color (SoC) are expected to become at least half of the US population by the year 2044, there remains a paucity of education and exposure to treatment of patients with SoC at many dermatology residency programs across the country.¹ One way to improve SoC education has been the formation of specialized clinics, centers, and programs. The first SoC center (SoCC) was established in 1999 at Mount Sinai–St. Luke’s Roosevelt in New York, New York²; since then, at least 13 additional formal SoCCs or SoC specialty clinics (SoCSCs) at US academic dermatology programs have been established.

Skin of color centers serve several important purposes: they improve dermatologic care in patients with SoC, increase research efforts focused on SoC dermatologic conditions, and educate dermatology resident and fellow trainees about SoC. Improving dermatologic care of patients with SoC in the United States is important in providing equitable health care and improving health disparities. Studies have shown that patient-physician racial and cultural concordance can positively impact patient care, increase patient trust and rapport, and improve patient-physician communication, and it can even influence patient decision-making to seek care.^3,4 Unfortunately, even though the US population continues to diversify, the racial/ethnic backgrounds of dermatologists do not parallel this trend; Hispanic and Black physicians comprise 18.9% and 13.6% of the general population, respectively, but represent only 4.2% and 3.0% of dermatologists, respectively.^5-7 This deficit is mirrored by resident and faculty representation, with Black and Latino representation ranging from 3% to 7%.^8-10

Many SoCC’s engage in research focused on dermatologic conditions affecting patients with SoC, which is vital to improving the dermatologic care in this underserved population. Despite increasing recognition of the importance of SoC research, there remains a paucity of clinical trials and research specifically focused on or demonstrating equitable representation of SoC.^11,12

The education and training of future dermatologists is another important area that can be improved by SoCCs. A 2008 study involving 63 chief residents showed that approximately half (52.4% [33/63]) of graduating dermatology residents reported receiving SoC-specific didactics, sessions, or lectures, and 30.2% (19/63) reported having a dedicated rotation where they gained specific experience treating patients with SoC.¹³ A later study in 2022 (N=125) found that 63.2% of graduating dermatology residents reported receiving SoC-specific didactics, sessions, or lectures, and only 11.2% reported having a dedicated rotation where they gained experience treating patients with SoC.¹⁴ These findings suggest that in the last 14 years, formal SoC education—specifically SoC clinical training—has not increased sufficiently.

We conducted a cross-sectional survey study to provide an in-depth analysis of SoCCs and SoCSCs in the United States, including their patient care focus, research, and program diversity.

Methods

We conducted an investigator-initiated, multicenter, cross-sectional survey study of all SoCCs in the United States and their respective academic residency programs. Fifteen formal SoCCs and/or SoCSCs were identified by dermatology program websites and an article by Tull et al² on the state of ethnic skin centers. All programs and centers identified were associated with a dermatology residency program accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education.

A 42-item questionnaire was sent via email to the directors of these centers and clinics with the intent to collect descriptive information about each of the SoCCs, the diversity of the faculty and residents of the associated dermatology department, current research and funding, diversity and inclusion initiatives, and trainee education from March through April 2020. Data were analyzed using Excel and SPSS statistical software to obtain descriptive statistics including the mean value numeric trends across programs.

This study underwent expedited review and was approved by the University of Southern California (Los Angeles, California) institutional review board (IRB #HS-20-00113). Patient consent was not applicable, as no information was collected about patients.

Results

Fourteen directors from SoCCs/SoCSCs completed the questionnaire (93.3% response rate). Most centers were located in urban areas (12/14 [85.71%]), except for 2 in rural or suburban settings (Table). Most of the SoCCs/SoCSCs were located in the South (5/14 [35.71%]), followed by the Northeast (4/14 [28.57%]), West (3/14 [21.43%]), and Midwest (2/14 [14.29%])(Table). Six (42.86%) of the programs had a SoCSC, 3 (21.43%) had a formal SoCC, and 5 (35.71%) had both. Across all centers, the most common population seen and treated was Black/African American followed by Hispanic/Latino and Asian, respectively. The most commonly seen dermatologic conditions were acne, pigmentary disorders, alopecia, and atopic dermatitis (Figure). The most common cosmetic practice performed for patients with SoC was dermatosis papulosa nigra/seborrheic keratosis removal, followed by laser treatments, skin tag removal, chemical peels, and neuromodulator injections, respectively.

Faculty and Resident Demographics and Areas of Focus—The demographics and diversity of the dermatology faculty and residents at each individual institution also were assessed. The average number of full-time faculty at each institution was 19.4 (range, 2–48), while the average number of full-time faculty who identified as underrepresented in medicine (URiM) was 2.1 (range, 0–5). The average number of residents at each institution was 17.1 (range, 10–31), while the average number of URiM residents was 1.7 (range, 1–3).

Comment

As the number of SoCCs/SoCSCs in the United States continues to grow, it is important to highlight their programmatic, research, and educational accomplishments to show the benefits of such programs, including their ability to increase access to culturally competent and inclusive care for diverse patient populations. One study found that nearly 92% of patients in the United States seen by dermatologists are White.¹⁵ Although studies have shown that Hispanic/Latino and Black patients are less likely to seek care from a dermatologist,^16,17 there is no indication that these patients have a lesser need for such specialty care. Additionally, outcomes of common dermatologic conditions often are poorer in SoC populations.¹⁵ The dermatologists leading SoCCs/SoCSCs are actively working to reverse these trends, with Black and Hispanic/Latino patients representing the majority of their patients.

Faculty and Resident Demographics and Areas of Focus—Although there are increased diversity efforts in dermatology and the medical profession more broadly, there still is much work to be done. While individuals with SoC now comprise more than 35% of the US population, only 12% of dermatology residents and 6% of academic dermatology faculty identify as either Black or Hispanic/Latino.^5,8,10 These numbers are even more discouraging when considering other URiM racial groups such as Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiians or Native American/American Indians who represent 0% and 0.1% of dermatology faculty, respectively.^8,10 Academic programs with SoCCs/SoCSCs are working to create a space in which these discrepancies in representation can begin to be addressed. Compared to the national 6.8% rate of URiM faculty at academic institutions, those with SoCCs/SoCSCs report closer to 10% of faculty identifying as URiM.¹⁸ Moreover, almost all programs had faculty specialized in at least 1 condition that predominantly affects patients with SoC. This is of critical importance, as the conditions that most commonly affect SoC populations—such as CCCA, hidradenitis suppurativa, and cutaneous lupus—often are understudied, underfunded, underdiagnosed, and undertreated.^19-22

Faculty SoC Research—An important step in narrowing the knowledge gap and improving health care disparities in patients with SoC is to increase SoC research and/or to increase the representation of patients with SoC in research studies. In a 2021 study, a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE using the terms race/­ethnicity, dyschromia, atopic dermatitis, and acne was conducted to investigate publications pertaining to the top 3 most common chief concerns in patients with SoC. Only 1.6% of studies analyzed (N=74,941) had a specific focus on SoC.¹² A similar study found that among the top 5 ­dermatology-focused research journals, only 3.4% of all research (N=11,003) on the top 3 most common chief concerns in patients with SOC was conducted in patients with SoC.²³ Research efforts focused on dermatologic issues that affect patients with SoC are a priority at SoCCs/SoCSCs. In our study, all respondents indicated that they had at least 1 ongoing observational study; the most commonly studied conditions were CCCA, keloids/hypertrophic scarring, and atopic dermatitis, all of which are conditions that either occur in high frequency or primarily occur in SoC. Only 35.71% (5/14) of respondents had active clinical trials related to SoC, and only 21.43% (3/14) and 28.57% (4/14) had internal and external funding, respectively. Although research efforts are a priority at SoCCs/SoCSCs, our survey study highlights the continued paucity of formal clinical trials as well as funding for SoC-focused research. Improved research efforts for SoC must address these deficits in funding, academic support, and other resources.

It also is of great importance for institutions to provide support for trainees wanting to pursue SoC research. Encouragingly, more than half (57.14%) of SoCCs/SoCSCs have developed formal research opportunities for residents, and nearly 64.29% have formal opportunities for medical students. These efforts to provide early experiences in SoC research are especially impactful by cultivating interest in working with populations with SoC and hopefully inspiring future dermatologists to engage in further SoC research.

SoC Education and Diversity Initiatives—Although it is important to increase representation of URiM physicians in dermatology and to train more SoC specialists, it is imperative that all dermatologists feel comfortable recognizing and treating dermatologic conditions in patients of all skin tones and all racial/ethnic backgrounds; however, many studies suggest that residents not only lack formal didactics and education in SoC, but even more unsettling, they also lack confidence in treating SoC.^13,24 However, one study showed that this can be changed; Mhlaba et al²⁵ assessed a SoC curriculum for dermatology residents, and indeed all of the residents indicated that the curriculum improved their ability to treat SoC patients. This deficit in dermatology residency training is specifically addressed by SoCCs/SoCSCs. In our study, all respondents indicated that residents rotate through their centers. Moreover, our study found that most of the academic institutions with SoCCs/SoCSCs provide a SoC didactic curriculum for residents, and almost all of the programs invited SoC specialists to give guest lectures. This is in contrast to a 2022 study showing that 63.2% (N=125) of graduating dermatology residents reported receiving SoC-specific didactics, sessions, or lectures.¹⁴ These findings highlight the critical role that SoCCs/SoCSCs can provide in dermatology residency training.

Although SoCCs/SoCSCs have made considerable progress, there is still much room for improvement. Namely, only half of the respondents in our study indicated that their program has formally incorporated a SoC textbook into resident education (eTable 3). Representation of SoC in the textbooks that dermatology residents use is critically important because these images form the foundation of the morphologic aids of diagnosis. Numerous studies have analyzed popular dermatologic textbooks used by residency programs nationwide, finding the number of SoC images across dermatology textbooks ranging from 4% to 18%.^26,27 The use of standard dermatology textbooks is not enough to train residents to be competent in diagnosing and treating patients with SoC. There should be a concerted effort across the field of dermatology to encourage the development of a SoC educational curriculum at every academic dermatology program, including SoC textbooks, Kodachromes, and online/electronic resources.

Efforts to increase diversity in dermatology and dermatologic training should start in medical school preclinical curriculums and medical student rotations. Although our survey did not assess current medical student curricula, the benefits of academic institutions with SoCCs/SoCSCs are highlighted by the ability for both home and visiting medical students to rotate through the centers and gain early exposure to SoC dermatology. Most of the programs even provide scholarships and/or grants for URiM students to help fund their rotations, which is of critical importance considering the mounting data that the financial burden of visiting rotations disproportionately affects URiM students.²⁸

Study Limitations—Although we did an extensive search and believe to have correctly identified all 15 formal SoCCs/SoCSCs with a high response rate (93.3%), there are institutions that do not have formalized SoCCs/SoCSCs but are known to serve SoC populations. Likewise, there are private dermatology practices not associated with academic centers that have SoC specialists and positively contribute to SoC patient care, research, and education that were not included in this study. Additionally, the data for this study were collected in 2020 and analyzed in 2021, so it is possible that not all SoCCs, divisions, or clinics were included in this study, particularly if established after 2021.

Conclusion

As the United States continues to diversify, the proportion of patients with SoC will continue to grow, and it is imperative that this racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity is reflected in the dermatology workforce as well as research and training. The current deficits in medical training related to SoC populations and the importance for patients with SoC to find dermatologists who can appropriately treat them is well known.²⁹ Skin of color centers/SoCSCs strive to increase access to care for patients with SoC, improve cultural competency, promote diversity among faculty and trainees, and encourage SoC research and education at all levels. We urge academic dermatology training programs to make SoC education, research, and patient care a departmental priority. Important first steps include departmental diversification at all levels, incorporating SoC into curricula for residents, providing and securing funding for SoC research, and supporting the establishment of more formal SoCCs and/or SoCSCs to help reduce dermatologic health care disparities among patients with SoC and improve health equity.

Appendix

To the Editor:

Prescriptions for isotretinoin may be influenced by patient demographics, medical comorbidities, and drug safety programs.^1,2 In 1982, isotretinoin was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for treatment of severe recalcitrant nodulocystic acne that is nonresponsive to conventional therapies such as antibiotics; however, prescriber beliefs regarding the necessity of oral antibiotic failure before isotretinoin is prescribed may be influenced by the provider’s generational age.³ Currently, there is a knowledge gap regarding the impact of provider characteristics, including the year providers completed training, on isotretinoin utilization. The aim of our cross-sectional study was to characterize generational isotretinoin prescribing habits in a large-scale midwestern private practice dermatology group.

Modernizing Medicine (https://www.modmed.com), an electronic medical record software, was queried for all encounters that included both an International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis code L70.0 (acne vulgaris) and a medication prescription from May 2021 to May 2022. Data were collected from a large private practice group with locations across the state of Ohio. Exclusion criteria included provider-patient prescription pairs that included non–acne medication prescriptions, patients seen by multiple providers, and providers who treated fewer than 5 patients with acne during the study period. A mixed-effect multiple logistic regression was performed to analyze whether a patient was ever prescribed isotretinoin, adjusting for individual prescriber, prescriber generation (millennial [1981–1996], Generation X [1965–1980], and baby boomer [1946–1964]),⁴ and patient sex; spironolactone and oral antibiotic prescriptions during the study period were included as additional covariates in a subsequent post hoc analysis. This study utilized data that was fully deidentified in accordance with the US Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule. Approval from an institutional review board was not required.

A total of 18,089 provider-patient prescription pairs were included in our analysis (Table). In our most robust model, female patients were significantly less likely to receive isotretinoin compared with male patients (adjusted OR [aOR], 0.394; P<.01). Millennial providers were significantly more likely to utilize isotretinoin in patients who did not receive antibiotics compared with patients who did receive antibiotics (aOR, 1.693; P<.01). When compared with both Generation X and baby boomers, millennial providers were more likely to prescribe isotretinoin in patients who received antibiotics (aOR, 2.227 [P=.02] and 3.638 [P<.01], respectively).

To the Editor:

Prescriptions for isotretinoin may be influenced by patient demographics, medical comorbidities, and drug safety programs.^1,2 In 1982, isotretinoin was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for treatment of severe recalcitrant nodulocystic acne that is nonresponsive to conventional therapies such as antibiotics; however, prescriber beliefs regarding the necessity of oral antibiotic failure before isotretinoin is prescribed may be influenced by the provider’s generational age.³ Currently, there is a knowledge gap regarding the impact of provider characteristics, including the year providers completed training, on isotretinoin utilization. The aim of our cross-sectional study was to characterize generational isotretinoin prescribing habits in a large-scale midwestern private practice dermatology group.

Modernizing Medicine (https://www.modmed.com), an electronic medical record software, was queried for all encounters that included both an International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis code L70.0 (acne vulgaris) and a medication prescription from May 2021 to May 2022. Data were collected from a large private practice group with locations across the state of Ohio. Exclusion criteria included provider-patient prescription pairs that included non–acne medication prescriptions, patients seen by multiple providers, and providers who treated fewer than 5 patients with acne during the study period. A mixed-effect multiple logistic regression was performed to analyze whether a patient was ever prescribed isotretinoin, adjusting for individual prescriber, prescriber generation (millennial [1981–1996], Generation X [1965–1980], and baby boomer [1946–1964]),⁴ and patient sex; spironolactone and oral antibiotic prescriptions during the study period were included as additional covariates in a subsequent post hoc analysis. This study utilized data that was fully deidentified in accordance with the US Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule. Approval from an institutional review board was not required.

A total of 18,089 provider-patient prescription pairs were included in our analysis (Table). In our most robust model, female patients were significantly less likely to receive isotretinoin compared with male patients (adjusted OR [aOR], 0.394; P<.01). Millennial providers were significantly more likely to utilize isotretinoin in patients who did not receive antibiotics compared with patients who did receive antibiotics (aOR, 1.693; P<.01). When compared with both Generation X and baby boomers, millennial providers were more likely to prescribe isotretinoin in patients who received antibiotics (aOR, 2.227 [P=.02] and 3.638 [P<.01], respectively).

To the Editor:

Prescriptions for isotretinoin may be influenced by patient demographics, medical comorbidities, and drug safety programs.^1,2 In 1982, isotretinoin was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for treatment of severe recalcitrant nodulocystic acne that is nonresponsive to conventional therapies such as antibiotics; however, prescriber beliefs regarding the necessity of oral antibiotic failure before isotretinoin is prescribed may be influenced by the provider’s generational age.³ Currently, there is a knowledge gap regarding the impact of provider characteristics, including the year providers completed training, on isotretinoin utilization. The aim of our cross-sectional study was to characterize generational isotretinoin prescribing habits in a large-scale midwestern private practice dermatology group.

Modernizing Medicine (https://www.modmed.com), an electronic medical record software, was queried for all encounters that included both an International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis code L70.0 (acne vulgaris) and a medication prescription from May 2021 to May 2022. Data were collected from a large private practice group with locations across the state of Ohio. Exclusion criteria included provider-patient prescription pairs that included non–acne medication prescriptions, patients seen by multiple providers, and providers who treated fewer than 5 patients with acne during the study period. A mixed-effect multiple logistic regression was performed to analyze whether a patient was ever prescribed isotretinoin, adjusting for individual prescriber, prescriber generation (millennial [1981–1996], Generation X [1965–1980], and baby boomer [1946–1964]),⁴ and patient sex; spironolactone and oral antibiotic prescriptions during the study period were included as additional covariates in a subsequent post hoc analysis. This study utilized data that was fully deidentified in accordance with the US Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rule. Approval from an institutional review board was not required.

A total of 18,089 provider-patient prescription pairs were included in our analysis (Table). In our most robust model, female patients were significantly less likely to receive isotretinoin compared with male patients (adjusted OR [aOR], 0.394; P<.01). Millennial providers were significantly more likely to utilize isotretinoin in patients who did not receive antibiotics compared with patients who did receive antibiotics (aOR, 1.693; P<.01). When compared with both Generation X and baby boomers, millennial providers were more likely to prescribe isotretinoin in patients who received antibiotics (aOR, 2.227 [P=.02] and 3.638 [P<.01], respectively).

TOPLINE:

The incidence of dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) is twice as high in Black individuals as in White individuals, according to a study that also found that larger tumor size and older age were associated with survival outcomes.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry from 2000 through 2018 to provide a comprehensive report on the incidence of DFSP, a rare, low-grade cutaneous soft tissue sarcoma, and factors associated with metastatic progression, overall survival (OS), and cancer-specific survival.
• A total of 7748 patients (mean age, 43.5 years; 53.3% women; 52% non-Hispanic White) were diagnosed with histologically confirmed DFSP of the skin and connective tissue and were included in the study.
• DFSP incidence was reported as cases per million person-years and age-adjusted to the 2000 US Standard Population, and factors influencing metastasis were assessed.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall DFSP incidence rate was 6.25 cases per million person-years, with a higher incidence in Black individuals than in White individuals (8.74 vs 4.53).
• The 5-year OS rate was 95.8%. Older age (≥ 60 years; hazard ratio [HR], 6.66), male gender assigned at birth (HR, 1.79), and larger tumor size (≥ 3 cm; HR, 2.02) were associated with poorer OS (P < .001 for all).
• The 1-year and 5-year DFSP-specific survival rates were 99.9% and 99.2%, respectively. Older age (HR, 3.47; P < .001) and larger tumor size (≥ 3 cm; HR, 5.34; P = .002) were associated with significantly worse cancer-specific survival.
• Large tumor size (odds ratio [OR], 2.24) and DFSP located on the head and neck (OR, 4.88), or genitalia (OR, 3.16) were significantly associated with increased metastasis risk. Higher socioeconomic status was linked to a lower risk for metastasis.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings highlight the increased incidence rates of DFSP among Black patients. We demonstrate the interplay between patient demographics and clinical factors in influencing DFSP metastasis, OS, and cancer-specific survival,” the authors wrote. The results, they added, “may be useful for further evaluation of proposed causes, which will ultimately lead to further understanding and prevention of this disease.”
 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jalal Maghfour, MD, Department of Dermatology, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, and was published online on June 20 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
 

LIMITATIONS:

Details on specific cases in the SEER registry are limited. For 1752 patients, tumor size was not included, increasing the risk for misclassification bias. Because specific pathology reports were not available, the analysis did not address histologic grade.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding support. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The incidence of dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) is twice as high in Black individuals as in White individuals, according to a study that also found that larger tumor size and older age were associated with survival outcomes.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry from 2000 through 2018 to provide a comprehensive report on the incidence of DFSP, a rare, low-grade cutaneous soft tissue sarcoma, and factors associated with metastatic progression, overall survival (OS), and cancer-specific survival.
• A total of 7748 patients (mean age, 43.5 years; 53.3% women; 52% non-Hispanic White) were diagnosed with histologically confirmed DFSP of the skin and connective tissue and were included in the study.
• DFSP incidence was reported as cases per million person-years and age-adjusted to the 2000 US Standard Population, and factors influencing metastasis were assessed.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall DFSP incidence rate was 6.25 cases per million person-years, with a higher incidence in Black individuals than in White individuals (8.74 vs 4.53).
• The 5-year OS rate was 95.8%. Older age (≥ 60 years; hazard ratio [HR], 6.66), male gender assigned at birth (HR, 1.79), and larger tumor size (≥ 3 cm; HR, 2.02) were associated with poorer OS (P < .001 for all).
• The 1-year and 5-year DFSP-specific survival rates were 99.9% and 99.2%, respectively. Older age (HR, 3.47; P < .001) and larger tumor size (≥ 3 cm; HR, 5.34; P = .002) were associated with significantly worse cancer-specific survival.
• Large tumor size (odds ratio [OR], 2.24) and DFSP located on the head and neck (OR, 4.88), or genitalia (OR, 3.16) were significantly associated with increased metastasis risk. Higher socioeconomic status was linked to a lower risk for metastasis.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings highlight the increased incidence rates of DFSP among Black patients. We demonstrate the interplay between patient demographics and clinical factors in influencing DFSP metastasis, OS, and cancer-specific survival,” the authors wrote. The results, they added, “may be useful for further evaluation of proposed causes, which will ultimately lead to further understanding and prevention of this disease.”
 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jalal Maghfour, MD, Department of Dermatology, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, and was published online on June 20 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
 

LIMITATIONS:

Details on specific cases in the SEER registry are limited. For 1752 patients, tumor size was not included, increasing the risk for misclassification bias. Because specific pathology reports were not available, the analysis did not address histologic grade.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding support. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The incidence of dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (DFSP) is twice as high in Black individuals as in White individuals, according to a study that also found that larger tumor size and older age were associated with survival outcomes.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers used the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry from 2000 through 2018 to provide a comprehensive report on the incidence of DFSP, a rare, low-grade cutaneous soft tissue sarcoma, and factors associated with metastatic progression, overall survival (OS), and cancer-specific survival.
• A total of 7748 patients (mean age, 43.5 years; 53.3% women; 52% non-Hispanic White) were diagnosed with histologically confirmed DFSP of the skin and connective tissue and were included in the study.
• DFSP incidence was reported as cases per million person-years and age-adjusted to the 2000 US Standard Population, and factors influencing metastasis were assessed.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall DFSP incidence rate was 6.25 cases per million person-years, with a higher incidence in Black individuals than in White individuals (8.74 vs 4.53).
• The 5-year OS rate was 95.8%. Older age (≥ 60 years; hazard ratio [HR], 6.66), male gender assigned at birth (HR, 1.79), and larger tumor size (≥ 3 cm; HR, 2.02) were associated with poorer OS (P < .001 for all).
• The 1-year and 5-year DFSP-specific survival rates were 99.9% and 99.2%, respectively. Older age (HR, 3.47; P < .001) and larger tumor size (≥ 3 cm; HR, 5.34; P = .002) were associated with significantly worse cancer-specific survival.
• Large tumor size (odds ratio [OR], 2.24) and DFSP located on the head and neck (OR, 4.88), or genitalia (OR, 3.16) were significantly associated with increased metastasis risk. Higher socioeconomic status was linked to a lower risk for metastasis.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings highlight the increased incidence rates of DFSP among Black patients. We demonstrate the interplay between patient demographics and clinical factors in influencing DFSP metastasis, OS, and cancer-specific survival,” the authors wrote. The results, they added, “may be useful for further evaluation of proposed causes, which will ultimately lead to further understanding and prevention of this disease.”
 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Jalal Maghfour, MD, Department of Dermatology, Henry Ford Health, Detroit, and was published online on June 20 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.
 

LIMITATIONS:

Details on specific cases in the SEER registry are limited. For 1752 patients, tumor size was not included, increasing the risk for misclassification bias. Because specific pathology reports were not available, the analysis did not address histologic grade.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding support. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Some 15%-20% of the world’s population are neurodivergent, with conditions such as autism, dyslexia, Tourette syndrome, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and others. With different strengths and challenges around learning, engaging socially, or completing certain tasks, neurodivergent people can face barriers in the workforce.

Meanwhile, studies suggest that neurodivergent people may be overrepresented in STEM fields such as medicine. The medical field may self-select for traits associated with neurodivergent conditions, researchers say, including a hyperfocus on intense interests, pattern recognition, increased curiosity and empathy, and thinking quickly under pressure.

But neurodivergent physicians report difficult, even damaging, experiences in the healthcare field. They struggle with stigma, a culture of nondisclosure, and lack of accommodations, which can lead to burnout and poor mental health.

“The medical system and the mental health system are some of the spaces that are holding on tightly to some of the outdated understandings of things like autism and ADHD,” says Megan Anna Neff, PsyD, a psychologist with autism and ADHD based in Portland, Oregon.

Situations can get dire: A 2023 survey of more than 200 autistic doctors from several countries found that 77% had considered suicide and 24% had attempted it.

But here’s the crux of it: Many neurodivergent doctors believe their unique ways of thinking and outside-the-box creativity are skills and strengths that can benefit the field. And they say making medicine more inclusive — and better understanding how a neurodivergent physician’s brain works — would allow them to thrive.
 

Blending In and Breaking Down

The exact number of neurodivergent physicians in the workforce remains unknown. Existing studies are small and focus mainly on autism. But researchers believe the percentage could be higher than we think, because neurodiversity can be underidentified.

Although autism can sometimes be diagnosed as early as 18 months, it’s not uncommon to receive a diagnosis well into adulthood. “Like many late-identified autistic adults, I got my autism diagnosis in the context of autistic burnout,” says Melissa Houser, MD, a primary care physician who received a diagnosis in 2021. Dr. Houser, who uses the pronouns she/they, explains that her experience is common, “a consequence of chronically having your life’s demands exceed your capacity.”

Dr. Houser, who also has ADHD and dyslexia, among other neurodivergent conditions, says that before her diagnosis, she worked in a traditional practice setting. Eventually, she began to notice intense dysregulation and fatigue. “I began to have a lot more difficulties with communication and my motor planning and sequencing,” Dr. Houser says. “I was sleep-deprived, and my needs were not being met. I was in a situation where I had a complete lack of autonomy over my practice.”

Deep in burnout, Dr. Houser says she lost her ability to “mask,” a term used to describe how some neurodivergent people work to “blend in” with societal expectations. This led to further communication breakdowns with her supervisor. Finally, Dr. Houser saw a psychiatrist.

Shortly after her diagnosis, Dr. Houser quit her job and founded All Brains Belong, a nonprofit that provides neurodiversity-affirming medical care, education, and advocacy. Research has found that people with autism are at increased risk for physical health conditions, including immune conditions, gastrointestinal disorders, metabolic conditions, and increased mortality in hospital settings. Understanding these connections can “mean the difference between life and death” for neurodivergent patients, Dr. Houser says.

Yet, in a 2015 study that assessed providers’ ability to recognize autism, a high proportion were not aware that they had patients with autism spectrum disorder, and most reported lacking both the skills and the tools to care for them.
 

Different as a Doctor and a Patient

Bernadette Grosjean, MD, a retired associate professor of psychiatry at David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and a distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, also found insight into lifelong experiences as both a doctor and a patient with her autism diagnosis, which came when she was 61.

“Looking back, I was a smart kid but kind of clumsy and different in other ways,” Dr. Grosjean says. According to a 2021 survey by Cambridge University, autistic individuals are significantly more likely to identify as LGBTQ+, and Dr. Grosjean, who is gay, says that not being fully accepted by family or friends played a role in her struggles with mental health issues.

Throughout her mental health treatment, Dr. Grosjean felt as though her providers “were expecting from me things that I didn’t know how to do or fix. I didn’t know how to be a ‘good’ patient,” she recalls.

As a psychiatrist, Dr. Grosjean started to notice that many of the women she treated for borderline personality disorder, which is categorized by unstable relationships and emotions, were autistic. “I then started asking lots of questions about myself — the fact that I’ve always been very sensitive or that I’ve been accused of being both hypersensitive and not having emotions, and I understood a lot.”

When Dr. Grosjean came across Autistic Doctors International, a group of over 800 autistic doctors worldwide, she says, “I found my tribe.” She now serves as the US lead for psychiatry for the group, which is focused on support, advocacy, research, and education around neurodiversity.

Psychiatric comorbidities can accompany neurodivergent conditions. But a growing body of research, including a 2022 study published in the European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, indicates that autism and ADHD are frequently misdiagnosed as depression or anxiety.

Dr. Neff was unaware of her conditions until one of her children was diagnosed with autism in 2021. She started to research it. “As I was learning about autism and girls, I was like, ‘Oh, my gosh, this is me,’ ” Dr. Neff recalls. Within a few weeks, she had her own diagnosis.

In hindsight, Dr. Neff has more clarity regarding her struggles in the traditional medical space. She had found it difficult to fit patients into short appointment windows and keep their notes concise. Although she loved hospital work, the environment had been overwhelming and led to burnout.
 

‘A Deficit-Based Lens’

Dr. Houser believes that too often, autism is viewed through a “deficit-based lens.” Stressors like sensory overload, changes in routine, or unexpected events can exacerbate behavioral challenges for neurodivergent people in the workplace. The DSM-5 criteria for autism, she points out, are largely based on autistic “stress behaviors.”

The result, Dr. Houser says, is that neurodivergent doctors are judged by their response to stressors that put them at a disadvantage rather than their capabilities under more positive circumstances. “The more dysregulated someone is,” she says, “the more likely they are to manifest those observable behaviors.”

Dr. Neff notes that medicine is a very “sensory overwhelming work environment.” Working in ob.gyn. and primary care clinics, she remembers often coming home with a headache and a low-grade fever. “I had no idea why, but I now realize it’s because I was so sensory sick.”

Fearing for her job, Dr. Neff intentionally waited until she was in private practice to disclose her neurodiversity. “I don’t think it would have been received well if I was in a hospital system,” she says. “There’s a lot of invalidation that can come when someone chooses to self-disclose, and their colleagues don’t have a framework in mind to understand.” In one instance, after revealing her diagnosis, she remembers a well-known researcher telling her she wasn’t autistic.
Dr. Grosjean has also had former colleagues invalidate her diagnosis, something she says “keeps people quiet.”
 

Understanding the Neurodivergent Brain

The general lack of education on how neurodivergent brains work, physicians with these conditions say, means they are not often recognized for how they can function with certain accommodations and how they could contribute in unique ways if their workplace challenges were reduced.

“What we know about autistic brains is that we are systems-thinking pattern matchers,” says Dr. Houser, who formed an interdisciplinary task force to explore medical conditions that are more common in autistic people. Through that comprehensive approach, she has worked to find best practices to treat the constellation of conditions that can arise among these patients. “My autistic brain allowed me to do that,” Dr. Houser says.

Catriona McVey, a medical student in the United Kingdom and creator of the blog Attention Deficit Doctor, points out that “ADHD brains are interest-driven; they can be very focused when you’re doing something enjoyable or new due to increased dopaminergic stimulation.” Ms. McVey speaks from personal experience. “I’ve hyperfocused before on an essay that interested me for over 10 hours,” she recalls, “so I imagine if I was interested in surgery, I could easily hyperfocus on a long operation.” 

Empathy is another key part of medical practice. Contrary to stereotypes of neurodivergent people lacking empathy, current research suggests this isn’t true. A concept known as the “double empathy problem,” a term coined by British researcher Damian Milton in 2012, challenges the misconception that autistic people do not have empathy, explains Dr. Grosjean.

Mr. Milton theorized that there are two types of empathy: emotional, when you feel someone else’s pain, and cognitive, which involves critical thinking to understand someone’s emotions or thoughts. “Autistic people have, in general, a lot of emotional empathy,” Dr. Grosjean says, “but the cognitive empathy they don’t have as well.”

Dr. Neff has experienced this in her practice. “I will often feel what my clients are feeling as they’re feeling it,” she says, adding that she has always had an innate ability to analyze and connect with clients. She’s good at observing the interplay of health conditions, incorporating biology, psychology, and social conceptualizations of issues, with nuance. She feels that recognizing behavioral patterns or psychological triggers in her patients helps her see them holistically and provide better care. “That was a skill even before I realized I was autistic, but I always thought it was just intuitive to everyone,” she says. 
 

Support Can Lead to Success

The Americans with Disabilities Act requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to neurodivergent employees. However, getting those accommodations involves disclosure, which many physicians have reasons to avoid.

It also means more work. Requesting and putting adjustments in place can take a lot of time and energy to organize. Ms. McVey says they can be “long-winded, multistep tasks” that are not very compatible with ADHD. “Some doctors report that service pressures and funding are used as excuses to refuse adjustments,” she adds. 

Ms. McVey lists several workplace accommodations that could be helpful, including flexible working hours, a quiet space to complete paperwork, dictation software, and extra time for medical students to complete written exams.

Neurodivergent physicians have also called for increased diversity of senior leadership and utilizing “cognitive apprenticeship models,” where employees explain their thought processes and receive timely feedback.

But far too often, there is little intervention until a doctor reaches a crisis point. “I look forward to the day when we don’t have to wait until people are profoundly depleted to discover how their brains work,” says Dr. Houser.

Beyond logistical and structural changes in the medical field, Dr. Grosjean speaks of the simple need to listen to colleagues with an open mind and believe them when they express their feelings and experiences. “Everyone has a role to play in challenging stigma, misconceptions, and stereotypes,” Ms. McVey agrees. Ask yourself the old question, she suggests: “If not me, then who? If not now, then when?”

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

Some 15%-20% of the world’s population are neurodivergent, with conditions such as autism, dyslexia, Tourette syndrome, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and others. With different strengths and challenges around learning, engaging socially, or completing certain tasks, neurodivergent people can face barriers in the workforce.

Meanwhile, studies suggest that neurodivergent people may be overrepresented in STEM fields such as medicine. The medical field may self-select for traits associated with neurodivergent conditions, researchers say, including a hyperfocus on intense interests, pattern recognition, increased curiosity and empathy, and thinking quickly under pressure.

But neurodivergent physicians report difficult, even damaging, experiences in the healthcare field. They struggle with stigma, a culture of nondisclosure, and lack of accommodations, which can lead to burnout and poor mental health.

“The medical system and the mental health system are some of the spaces that are holding on tightly to some of the outdated understandings of things like autism and ADHD,” says Megan Anna Neff, PsyD, a psychologist with autism and ADHD based in Portland, Oregon.

Situations can get dire: A 2023 survey of more than 200 autistic doctors from several countries found that 77% had considered suicide and 24% had attempted it.

But here’s the crux of it: Many neurodivergent doctors believe their unique ways of thinking and outside-the-box creativity are skills and strengths that can benefit the field. And they say making medicine more inclusive — and better understanding how a neurodivergent physician’s brain works — would allow them to thrive.
 

Blending In and Breaking Down

The exact number of neurodivergent physicians in the workforce remains unknown. Existing studies are small and focus mainly on autism. But researchers believe the percentage could be higher than we think, because neurodiversity can be underidentified.

Although autism can sometimes be diagnosed as early as 18 months, it’s not uncommon to receive a diagnosis well into adulthood. “Like many late-identified autistic adults, I got my autism diagnosis in the context of autistic burnout,” says Melissa Houser, MD, a primary care physician who received a diagnosis in 2021. Dr. Houser, who uses the pronouns she/they, explains that her experience is common, “a consequence of chronically having your life’s demands exceed your capacity.”

Dr. Houser, who also has ADHD and dyslexia, among other neurodivergent conditions, says that before her diagnosis, she worked in a traditional practice setting. Eventually, she began to notice intense dysregulation and fatigue. “I began to have a lot more difficulties with communication and my motor planning and sequencing,” Dr. Houser says. “I was sleep-deprived, and my needs were not being met. I was in a situation where I had a complete lack of autonomy over my practice.”

Deep in burnout, Dr. Houser says she lost her ability to “mask,” a term used to describe how some neurodivergent people work to “blend in” with societal expectations. This led to further communication breakdowns with her supervisor. Finally, Dr. Houser saw a psychiatrist.

Shortly after her diagnosis, Dr. Houser quit her job and founded All Brains Belong, a nonprofit that provides neurodiversity-affirming medical care, education, and advocacy. Research has found that people with autism are at increased risk for physical health conditions, including immune conditions, gastrointestinal disorders, metabolic conditions, and increased mortality in hospital settings. Understanding these connections can “mean the difference between life and death” for neurodivergent patients, Dr. Houser says.

Yet, in a 2015 study that assessed providers’ ability to recognize autism, a high proportion were not aware that they had patients with autism spectrum disorder, and most reported lacking both the skills and the tools to care for them.
 

Different as a Doctor and a Patient

Bernadette Grosjean, MD, a retired associate professor of psychiatry at David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and a distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, also found insight into lifelong experiences as both a doctor and a patient with her autism diagnosis, which came when she was 61.

“Looking back, I was a smart kid but kind of clumsy and different in other ways,” Dr. Grosjean says. According to a 2021 survey by Cambridge University, autistic individuals are significantly more likely to identify as LGBTQ+, and Dr. Grosjean, who is gay, says that not being fully accepted by family or friends played a role in her struggles with mental health issues.

Throughout her mental health treatment, Dr. Grosjean felt as though her providers “were expecting from me things that I didn’t know how to do or fix. I didn’t know how to be a ‘good’ patient,” she recalls.

As a psychiatrist, Dr. Grosjean started to notice that many of the women she treated for borderline personality disorder, which is categorized by unstable relationships and emotions, were autistic. “I then started asking lots of questions about myself — the fact that I’ve always been very sensitive or that I’ve been accused of being both hypersensitive and not having emotions, and I understood a lot.”

When Dr. Grosjean came across Autistic Doctors International, a group of over 800 autistic doctors worldwide, she says, “I found my tribe.” She now serves as the US lead for psychiatry for the group, which is focused on support, advocacy, research, and education around neurodiversity.

Psychiatric comorbidities can accompany neurodivergent conditions. But a growing body of research, including a 2022 study published in the European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, indicates that autism and ADHD are frequently misdiagnosed as depression or anxiety.

Dr. Neff was unaware of her conditions until one of her children was diagnosed with autism in 2021. She started to research it. “As I was learning about autism and girls, I was like, ‘Oh, my gosh, this is me,’ ” Dr. Neff recalls. Within a few weeks, she had her own diagnosis.

In hindsight, Dr. Neff has more clarity regarding her struggles in the traditional medical space. She had found it difficult to fit patients into short appointment windows and keep their notes concise. Although she loved hospital work, the environment had been overwhelming and led to burnout.
 

‘A Deficit-Based Lens’

Dr. Houser believes that too often, autism is viewed through a “deficit-based lens.” Stressors like sensory overload, changes in routine, or unexpected events can exacerbate behavioral challenges for neurodivergent people in the workplace. The DSM-5 criteria for autism, she points out, are largely based on autistic “stress behaviors.”

The result, Dr. Houser says, is that neurodivergent doctors are judged by their response to stressors that put them at a disadvantage rather than their capabilities under more positive circumstances. “The more dysregulated someone is,” she says, “the more likely they are to manifest those observable behaviors.”

Dr. Neff notes that medicine is a very “sensory overwhelming work environment.” Working in ob.gyn. and primary care clinics, she remembers often coming home with a headache and a low-grade fever. “I had no idea why, but I now realize it’s because I was so sensory sick.”

Fearing for her job, Dr. Neff intentionally waited until she was in private practice to disclose her neurodiversity. “I don’t think it would have been received well if I was in a hospital system,” she says. “There’s a lot of invalidation that can come when someone chooses to self-disclose, and their colleagues don’t have a framework in mind to understand.” In one instance, after revealing her diagnosis, she remembers a well-known researcher telling her she wasn’t autistic.
Dr. Grosjean has also had former colleagues invalidate her diagnosis, something she says “keeps people quiet.”
 

Understanding the Neurodivergent Brain

The general lack of education on how neurodivergent brains work, physicians with these conditions say, means they are not often recognized for how they can function with certain accommodations and how they could contribute in unique ways if their workplace challenges were reduced.

“What we know about autistic brains is that we are systems-thinking pattern matchers,” says Dr. Houser, who formed an interdisciplinary task force to explore medical conditions that are more common in autistic people. Through that comprehensive approach, she has worked to find best practices to treat the constellation of conditions that can arise among these patients. “My autistic brain allowed me to do that,” Dr. Houser says.

Catriona McVey, a medical student in the United Kingdom and creator of the blog Attention Deficit Doctor, points out that “ADHD brains are interest-driven; they can be very focused when you’re doing something enjoyable or new due to increased dopaminergic stimulation.” Ms. McVey speaks from personal experience. “I’ve hyperfocused before on an essay that interested me for over 10 hours,” she recalls, “so I imagine if I was interested in surgery, I could easily hyperfocus on a long operation.” 

Empathy is another key part of medical practice. Contrary to stereotypes of neurodivergent people lacking empathy, current research suggests this isn’t true. A concept known as the “double empathy problem,” a term coined by British researcher Damian Milton in 2012, challenges the misconception that autistic people do not have empathy, explains Dr. Grosjean.

Mr. Milton theorized that there are two types of empathy: emotional, when you feel someone else’s pain, and cognitive, which involves critical thinking to understand someone’s emotions or thoughts. “Autistic people have, in general, a lot of emotional empathy,” Dr. Grosjean says, “but the cognitive empathy they don’t have as well.”

Dr. Neff has experienced this in her practice. “I will often feel what my clients are feeling as they’re feeling it,” she says, adding that she has always had an innate ability to analyze and connect with clients. She’s good at observing the interplay of health conditions, incorporating biology, psychology, and social conceptualizations of issues, with nuance. She feels that recognizing behavioral patterns or psychological triggers in her patients helps her see them holistically and provide better care. “That was a skill even before I realized I was autistic, but I always thought it was just intuitive to everyone,” she says. 
 

Support Can Lead to Success

The Americans with Disabilities Act requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to neurodivergent employees. However, getting those accommodations involves disclosure, which many physicians have reasons to avoid.

It also means more work. Requesting and putting adjustments in place can take a lot of time and energy to organize. Ms. McVey says they can be “long-winded, multistep tasks” that are not very compatible with ADHD. “Some doctors report that service pressures and funding are used as excuses to refuse adjustments,” she adds. 

Ms. McVey lists several workplace accommodations that could be helpful, including flexible working hours, a quiet space to complete paperwork, dictation software, and extra time for medical students to complete written exams.

Neurodivergent physicians have also called for increased diversity of senior leadership and utilizing “cognitive apprenticeship models,” where employees explain their thought processes and receive timely feedback.

But far too often, there is little intervention until a doctor reaches a crisis point. “I look forward to the day when we don’t have to wait until people are profoundly depleted to discover how their brains work,” says Dr. Houser.

Beyond logistical and structural changes in the medical field, Dr. Grosjean speaks of the simple need to listen to colleagues with an open mind and believe them when they express their feelings and experiences. “Everyone has a role to play in challenging stigma, misconceptions, and stereotypes,” Ms. McVey agrees. Ask yourself the old question, she suggests: “If not me, then who? If not now, then when?”

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

Some 15%-20% of the world’s population are neurodivergent, with conditions such as autism, dyslexia, Tourette syndrome, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and others. With different strengths and challenges around learning, engaging socially, or completing certain tasks, neurodivergent people can face barriers in the workforce.

Meanwhile, studies suggest that neurodivergent people may be overrepresented in STEM fields such as medicine. The medical field may self-select for traits associated with neurodivergent conditions, researchers say, including a hyperfocus on intense interests, pattern recognition, increased curiosity and empathy, and thinking quickly under pressure.

But neurodivergent physicians report difficult, even damaging, experiences in the healthcare field. They struggle with stigma, a culture of nondisclosure, and lack of accommodations, which can lead to burnout and poor mental health.

“The medical system and the mental health system are some of the spaces that are holding on tightly to some of the outdated understandings of things like autism and ADHD,” says Megan Anna Neff, PsyD, a psychologist with autism and ADHD based in Portland, Oregon.

Situations can get dire: A 2023 survey of more than 200 autistic doctors from several countries found that 77% had considered suicide and 24% had attempted it.

But here’s the crux of it: Many neurodivergent doctors believe their unique ways of thinking and outside-the-box creativity are skills and strengths that can benefit the field. And they say making medicine more inclusive — and better understanding how a neurodivergent physician’s brain works — would allow them to thrive.
 

Blending In and Breaking Down

The exact number of neurodivergent physicians in the workforce remains unknown. Existing studies are small and focus mainly on autism. But researchers believe the percentage could be higher than we think, because neurodiversity can be underidentified.

Although autism can sometimes be diagnosed as early as 18 months, it’s not uncommon to receive a diagnosis well into adulthood. “Like many late-identified autistic adults, I got my autism diagnosis in the context of autistic burnout,” says Melissa Houser, MD, a primary care physician who received a diagnosis in 2021. Dr. Houser, who uses the pronouns she/they, explains that her experience is common, “a consequence of chronically having your life’s demands exceed your capacity.”

Dr. Houser, who also has ADHD and dyslexia, among other neurodivergent conditions, says that before her diagnosis, she worked in a traditional practice setting. Eventually, she began to notice intense dysregulation and fatigue. “I began to have a lot more difficulties with communication and my motor planning and sequencing,” Dr. Houser says. “I was sleep-deprived, and my needs were not being met. I was in a situation where I had a complete lack of autonomy over my practice.”

Deep in burnout, Dr. Houser says she lost her ability to “mask,” a term used to describe how some neurodivergent people work to “blend in” with societal expectations. This led to further communication breakdowns with her supervisor. Finally, Dr. Houser saw a psychiatrist.

Shortly after her diagnosis, Dr. Houser quit her job and founded All Brains Belong, a nonprofit that provides neurodiversity-affirming medical care, education, and advocacy. Research has found that people with autism are at increased risk for physical health conditions, including immune conditions, gastrointestinal disorders, metabolic conditions, and increased mortality in hospital settings. Understanding these connections can “mean the difference between life and death” for neurodivergent patients, Dr. Houser says.

Yet, in a 2015 study that assessed providers’ ability to recognize autism, a high proportion were not aware that they had patients with autism spectrum disorder, and most reported lacking both the skills and the tools to care for them.
 

Different as a Doctor and a Patient

Bernadette Grosjean, MD, a retired associate professor of psychiatry at David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and a distinguished Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, also found insight into lifelong experiences as both a doctor and a patient with her autism diagnosis, which came when she was 61.

“Looking back, I was a smart kid but kind of clumsy and different in other ways,” Dr. Grosjean says. According to a 2021 survey by Cambridge University, autistic individuals are significantly more likely to identify as LGBTQ+, and Dr. Grosjean, who is gay, says that not being fully accepted by family or friends played a role in her struggles with mental health issues.

Throughout her mental health treatment, Dr. Grosjean felt as though her providers “were expecting from me things that I didn’t know how to do or fix. I didn’t know how to be a ‘good’ patient,” she recalls.

As a psychiatrist, Dr. Grosjean started to notice that many of the women she treated for borderline personality disorder, which is categorized by unstable relationships and emotions, were autistic. “I then started asking lots of questions about myself — the fact that I’ve always been very sensitive or that I’ve been accused of being both hypersensitive and not having emotions, and I understood a lot.”

When Dr. Grosjean came across Autistic Doctors International, a group of over 800 autistic doctors worldwide, she says, “I found my tribe.” She now serves as the US lead for psychiatry for the group, which is focused on support, advocacy, research, and education around neurodiversity.

Psychiatric comorbidities can accompany neurodivergent conditions. But a growing body of research, including a 2022 study published in the European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, indicates that autism and ADHD are frequently misdiagnosed as depression or anxiety.

Dr. Neff was unaware of her conditions until one of her children was diagnosed with autism in 2021. She started to research it. “As I was learning about autism and girls, I was like, ‘Oh, my gosh, this is me,’ ” Dr. Neff recalls. Within a few weeks, she had her own diagnosis.

In hindsight, Dr. Neff has more clarity regarding her struggles in the traditional medical space. She had found it difficult to fit patients into short appointment windows and keep their notes concise. Although she loved hospital work, the environment had been overwhelming and led to burnout.
 

‘A Deficit-Based Lens’

Dr. Houser believes that too often, autism is viewed through a “deficit-based lens.” Stressors like sensory overload, changes in routine, or unexpected events can exacerbate behavioral challenges for neurodivergent people in the workplace. The DSM-5 criteria for autism, she points out, are largely based on autistic “stress behaviors.”

The result, Dr. Houser says, is that neurodivergent doctors are judged by their response to stressors that put them at a disadvantage rather than their capabilities under more positive circumstances. “The more dysregulated someone is,” she says, “the more likely they are to manifest those observable behaviors.”

Dr. Neff notes that medicine is a very “sensory overwhelming work environment.” Working in ob.gyn. and primary care clinics, she remembers often coming home with a headache and a low-grade fever. “I had no idea why, but I now realize it’s because I was so sensory sick.”

Fearing for her job, Dr. Neff intentionally waited until she was in private practice to disclose her neurodiversity. “I don’t think it would have been received well if I was in a hospital system,” she says. “There’s a lot of invalidation that can come when someone chooses to self-disclose, and their colleagues don’t have a framework in mind to understand.” In one instance, after revealing her diagnosis, she remembers a well-known researcher telling her she wasn’t autistic.
Dr. Grosjean has also had former colleagues invalidate her diagnosis, something she says “keeps people quiet.”
 

Understanding the Neurodivergent Brain

The general lack of education on how neurodivergent brains work, physicians with these conditions say, means they are not often recognized for how they can function with certain accommodations and how they could contribute in unique ways if their workplace challenges were reduced.

“What we know about autistic brains is that we are systems-thinking pattern matchers,” says Dr. Houser, who formed an interdisciplinary task force to explore medical conditions that are more common in autistic people. Through that comprehensive approach, she has worked to find best practices to treat the constellation of conditions that can arise among these patients. “My autistic brain allowed me to do that,” Dr. Houser says.

Catriona McVey, a medical student in the United Kingdom and creator of the blog Attention Deficit Doctor, points out that “ADHD brains are interest-driven; they can be very focused when you’re doing something enjoyable or new due to increased dopaminergic stimulation.” Ms. McVey speaks from personal experience. “I’ve hyperfocused before on an essay that interested me for over 10 hours,” she recalls, “so I imagine if I was interested in surgery, I could easily hyperfocus on a long operation.” 

Empathy is another key part of medical practice. Contrary to stereotypes of neurodivergent people lacking empathy, current research suggests this isn’t true. A concept known as the “double empathy problem,” a term coined by British researcher Damian Milton in 2012, challenges the misconception that autistic people do not have empathy, explains Dr. Grosjean.

Mr. Milton theorized that there are two types of empathy: emotional, when you feel someone else’s pain, and cognitive, which involves critical thinking to understand someone’s emotions or thoughts. “Autistic people have, in general, a lot of emotional empathy,” Dr. Grosjean says, “but the cognitive empathy they don’t have as well.”

Dr. Neff has experienced this in her practice. “I will often feel what my clients are feeling as they’re feeling it,” she says, adding that she has always had an innate ability to analyze and connect with clients. She’s good at observing the interplay of health conditions, incorporating biology, psychology, and social conceptualizations of issues, with nuance. She feels that recognizing behavioral patterns or psychological triggers in her patients helps her see them holistically and provide better care. “That was a skill even before I realized I was autistic, but I always thought it was just intuitive to everyone,” she says. 
 

Support Can Lead to Success

The Americans with Disabilities Act requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to neurodivergent employees. However, getting those accommodations involves disclosure, which many physicians have reasons to avoid.

It also means more work. Requesting and putting adjustments in place can take a lot of time and energy to organize. Ms. McVey says they can be “long-winded, multistep tasks” that are not very compatible with ADHD. “Some doctors report that service pressures and funding are used as excuses to refuse adjustments,” she adds. 

Ms. McVey lists several workplace accommodations that could be helpful, including flexible working hours, a quiet space to complete paperwork, dictation software, and extra time for medical students to complete written exams.

Neurodivergent physicians have also called for increased diversity of senior leadership and utilizing “cognitive apprenticeship models,” where employees explain their thought processes and receive timely feedback.

But far too often, there is little intervention until a doctor reaches a crisis point. “I look forward to the day when we don’t have to wait until people are profoundly depleted to discover how their brains work,” says Dr. Houser.

Beyond logistical and structural changes in the medical field, Dr. Grosjean speaks of the simple need to listen to colleagues with an open mind and believe them when they express their feelings and experiences. “Everyone has a role to play in challenging stigma, misconceptions, and stereotypes,” Ms. McVey agrees. Ask yourself the old question, she suggests: “If not me, then who? If not now, then when?”

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

The Comparison

A Plantar hyperpigmentation (benign ethnic melanosis) on the sole of the foot in a 62-year-old man of African descent with deeply pigmented skin. Dermoscopy showed a parallel ridge pattern even though the hyperpigmentation was benign (inset).

B Melanoma in situ with multicomponent hyperpigmentation on the sole of the foot in a 65-year-old Hispanic woman. Dermoscopy revealed a parallel ridge pattern (inset).

Plantar hyperpigmentation (also known as plantar melanosis [increased melanin], volar pigmented macules, benign racial melanosis, acral pigmentation, acral ethnic melanosis, or mottled hyperpigmentation of the plantar surface) is a benign finding in many individuals and is especially prevalent in those with darker skin tones. Acral refers to manifestation on the hands and feet, volar on the palms and soles, and plantar on the soles only. Here, we focus on plantar hyperpigmentation. We use the terms ethnic and racial interchangeably.

It is critically important to differentiate benign hyperpigmentation, which is common in patients with skin of color, from melanoma. Although rare, Black patients in the United States experience high morbidity and mortality from acral melanoma, which often is diagnosed late in the disease course.¹

There are many causes of hyperpigmentation on the plantar surfaces, including benign ethnic melanosis, nevi, melanoma, infections such as syphilis and tinea nigra, conditions such as Peutz-Jeghers syndrome and Laugier-Hunziker syndrome, and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation secondary to atopic dermatitis and psoriasis. We focus on the most common causes, ethnic melanosis and nevi, as well as melanoma, which is the deadliest cause.

Epidemiology

In a 1980 study (N=251), Black Americans had a high incidence of plantar hyperpigmentation, with 52% of affected patients having dark brown skin and 31% having light brown skin.²

The epidemiology of melanoma varies by race/ethnicity. Melanoma in Black individuals is relatively rare, with an annual incidence of approximately 1 in 100,000 individuals.³ However, when individuals with skin of color develop melanoma, they are more likely than their White counterparts to have acral melanoma (acral lentiginous melanoma), one of the deadliest types.¹ In a case series of Black patients with melanoma (N=48) from 2 tertiary care centers in Texas, 30 of 40 primary cutaneous melanomas (75%) were located on acral skin.⁴ Overall, 13 patients developed stage IV disease and 12 died due to disease progression. All patients who developed distant metastases or died of melanoma had acral melanoma.⁴ Individuals of Asian descent also have a high incidence of acral melanoma, as shown in research from Japan.^5-9

Key clinical features in individuals with darker skin tones

Dermoscopy is an evidence-based clinical examination method for earlier diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma, including on acral skin.^10,11 Benign nevi on the volar skin as well as the palms and soles tend to have one of these 3 dermoscopic patterns: parallel furrow, lattice, or irregular fibrillar. The pattern that is most predictive of volar melanoma is the parallel ridge pattern (PRP) (Figures A and B [insets]), which showed a high specificity (99.0%) and very high negative predictive value (97.7%) for malignant melanoma in a Japanese population.⁷ The PRP data from this study cannot be applied reliably to Black individuals, especially because benign ethnic melanosis and other benign conditions can demonstrate PRP.¹² Reliance on the PRP as a diagnostic clue could result in unneccessary biopsies in as many as 50% of Black patients with benign plantar hyperpigmentation.² Furthermore, biopsies of the plantar surface can be painful and cause pain while walking.

It has been suggested that PRP seen on dermoscopy in benign hyperpigmentation such as ethnic melanosis and nevi may preserve the acrosyringia (eccrine gland openings on the ridge), whereas PRP in melanoma may obliterate the acrosyringia.¹³ This observation is based on case reports only and needs further study. However, if validated, it could be a useful diagnostic clue.

Worth noting

In a retrospective cohort study of skin cancer in Black individuals (n=165) at a New York City–based cancer center from 2000 to 2020, 68% of patients were diagnosed with melanomas—80% were the acral subtype and 75% displayed a PRP. However, the surrounding uninvolved background skin, which was visible in most cases, also demonstrated a PRP.¹⁴ Because of the high morbidity and mortality rates of acral melanoma, clinicians should biopsy or immediately refer patients with concerning plantar hyperpigmentation to a dermatologist.

Health disparity highlight

The mortality rate for acral melanoma in Black patients is disproportionately high for the following reasons^15,16:

• Patients and health care providers do not expect to see melanoma in Black patients (it truly is rare!), so screening and education on sun protection are limited.
• Benign ethnic melanosis makes it more difficult to distinguish between early acral melanoma and benign skin changes.
• Black patients and other US patient populations with skin of color may be less likely to have health insurance, which contributes to inequities in access to health care. As of 2022, the uninsured rates for nonelderly American Indian and Alaska Native, Hispanic, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, Black, and White individuals were 19.1%, 18.0%, 12.7%, 10.0%, and 6.6%, respectively.¹⁷

Multi-institutional registries could improve understanding of acral melanoma in Black patients.⁴ More studies are needed to help differentiate between the dermoscopic finding of PRP in benign ethnic melanosis vs malignant melanoma.

The Comparison

A Plantar hyperpigmentation (benign ethnic melanosis) on the sole of the foot in a 62-year-old man of African descent with deeply pigmented skin. Dermoscopy showed a parallel ridge pattern even though the hyperpigmentation was benign (inset).

B Melanoma in situ with multicomponent hyperpigmentation on the sole of the foot in a 65-year-old Hispanic woman. Dermoscopy revealed a parallel ridge pattern (inset).

Plantar hyperpigmentation (also known as plantar melanosis [increased melanin], volar pigmented macules, benign racial melanosis, acral pigmentation, acral ethnic melanosis, or mottled hyperpigmentation of the plantar surface) is a benign finding in many individuals and is especially prevalent in those with darker skin tones. Acral refers to manifestation on the hands and feet, volar on the palms and soles, and plantar on the soles only. Here, we focus on plantar hyperpigmentation. We use the terms ethnic and racial interchangeably.

It is critically important to differentiate benign hyperpigmentation, which is common in patients with skin of color, from melanoma. Although rare, Black patients in the United States experience high morbidity and mortality from acral melanoma, which often is diagnosed late in the disease course.¹

There are many causes of hyperpigmentation on the plantar surfaces, including benign ethnic melanosis, nevi, melanoma, infections such as syphilis and tinea nigra, conditions such as Peutz-Jeghers syndrome and Laugier-Hunziker syndrome, and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation secondary to atopic dermatitis and psoriasis. We focus on the most common causes, ethnic melanosis and nevi, as well as melanoma, which is the deadliest cause.

Epidemiology

In a 1980 study (N=251), Black Americans had a high incidence of plantar hyperpigmentation, with 52% of affected patients having dark brown skin and 31% having light brown skin.²

The epidemiology of melanoma varies by race/ethnicity. Melanoma in Black individuals is relatively rare, with an annual incidence of approximately 1 in 100,000 individuals.³ However, when individuals with skin of color develop melanoma, they are more likely than their White counterparts to have acral melanoma (acral lentiginous melanoma), one of the deadliest types.¹ In a case series of Black patients with melanoma (N=48) from 2 tertiary care centers in Texas, 30 of 40 primary cutaneous melanomas (75%) were located on acral skin.⁴ Overall, 13 patients developed stage IV disease and 12 died due to disease progression. All patients who developed distant metastases or died of melanoma had acral melanoma.⁴ Individuals of Asian descent also have a high incidence of acral melanoma, as shown in research from Japan.^5-9

Key clinical features in individuals with darker skin tones

Dermoscopy is an evidence-based clinical examination method for earlier diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma, including on acral skin.^10,11 Benign nevi on the volar skin as well as the palms and soles tend to have one of these 3 dermoscopic patterns: parallel furrow, lattice, or irregular fibrillar. The pattern that is most predictive of volar melanoma is the parallel ridge pattern (PRP) (Figures A and B [insets]), which showed a high specificity (99.0%) and very high negative predictive value (97.7%) for malignant melanoma in a Japanese population.⁷ The PRP data from this study cannot be applied reliably to Black individuals, especially because benign ethnic melanosis and other benign conditions can demonstrate PRP.¹² Reliance on the PRP as a diagnostic clue could result in unneccessary biopsies in as many as 50% of Black patients with benign plantar hyperpigmentation.² Furthermore, biopsies of the plantar surface can be painful and cause pain while walking.

It has been suggested that PRP seen on dermoscopy in benign hyperpigmentation such as ethnic melanosis and nevi may preserve the acrosyringia (eccrine gland openings on the ridge), whereas PRP in melanoma may obliterate the acrosyringia.¹³ This observation is based on case reports only and needs further study. However, if validated, it could be a useful diagnostic clue.

Worth noting

In a retrospective cohort study of skin cancer in Black individuals (n=165) at a New York City–based cancer center from 2000 to 2020, 68% of patients were diagnosed with melanomas—80% were the acral subtype and 75% displayed a PRP. However, the surrounding uninvolved background skin, which was visible in most cases, also demonstrated a PRP.¹⁴ Because of the high morbidity and mortality rates of acral melanoma, clinicians should biopsy or immediately refer patients with concerning plantar hyperpigmentation to a dermatologist.

Health disparity highlight

The mortality rate for acral melanoma in Black patients is disproportionately high for the following reasons^15,16:

• Patients and health care providers do not expect to see melanoma in Black patients (it truly is rare!), so screening and education on sun protection are limited.
• Benign ethnic melanosis makes it more difficult to distinguish between early acral melanoma and benign skin changes.
• Black patients and other US patient populations with skin of color may be less likely to have health insurance, which contributes to inequities in access to health care. As of 2022, the uninsured rates for nonelderly American Indian and Alaska Native, Hispanic, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, Black, and White individuals were 19.1%, 18.0%, 12.7%, 10.0%, and 6.6%, respectively.¹⁷

Multi-institutional registries could improve understanding of acral melanoma in Black patients.⁴ More studies are needed to help differentiate between the dermoscopic finding of PRP in benign ethnic melanosis vs malignant melanoma.

The Comparison

A Plantar hyperpigmentation (benign ethnic melanosis) on the sole of the foot in a 62-year-old man of African descent with deeply pigmented skin. Dermoscopy showed a parallel ridge pattern even though the hyperpigmentation was benign (inset).

B Melanoma in situ with multicomponent hyperpigmentation on the sole of the foot in a 65-year-old Hispanic woman. Dermoscopy revealed a parallel ridge pattern (inset).

Plantar hyperpigmentation (also known as plantar melanosis [increased melanin], volar pigmented macules, benign racial melanosis, acral pigmentation, acral ethnic melanosis, or mottled hyperpigmentation of the plantar surface) is a benign finding in many individuals and is especially prevalent in those with darker skin tones. Acral refers to manifestation on the hands and feet, volar on the palms and soles, and plantar on the soles only. Here, we focus on plantar hyperpigmentation. We use the terms ethnic and racial interchangeably.

It is critically important to differentiate benign hyperpigmentation, which is common in patients with skin of color, from melanoma. Although rare, Black patients in the United States experience high morbidity and mortality from acral melanoma, which often is diagnosed late in the disease course.¹

There are many causes of hyperpigmentation on the plantar surfaces, including benign ethnic melanosis, nevi, melanoma, infections such as syphilis and tinea nigra, conditions such as Peutz-Jeghers syndrome and Laugier-Hunziker syndrome, and postinflammatory hyperpigmentation secondary to atopic dermatitis and psoriasis. We focus on the most common causes, ethnic melanosis and nevi, as well as melanoma, which is the deadliest cause.

Epidemiology

In a 1980 study (N=251), Black Americans had a high incidence of plantar hyperpigmentation, with 52% of affected patients having dark brown skin and 31% having light brown skin.²

The epidemiology of melanoma varies by race/ethnicity. Melanoma in Black individuals is relatively rare, with an annual incidence of approximately 1 in 100,000 individuals.³ However, when individuals with skin of color develop melanoma, they are more likely than their White counterparts to have acral melanoma (acral lentiginous melanoma), one of the deadliest types.¹ In a case series of Black patients with melanoma (N=48) from 2 tertiary care centers in Texas, 30 of 40 primary cutaneous melanomas (75%) were located on acral skin.⁴ Overall, 13 patients developed stage IV disease and 12 died due to disease progression. All patients who developed distant metastases or died of melanoma had acral melanoma.⁴ Individuals of Asian descent also have a high incidence of acral melanoma, as shown in research from Japan.^5-9

Key clinical features in individuals with darker skin tones

Dermoscopy is an evidence-based clinical examination method for earlier diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma, including on acral skin.^10,11 Benign nevi on the volar skin as well as the palms and soles tend to have one of these 3 dermoscopic patterns: parallel furrow, lattice, or irregular fibrillar. The pattern that is most predictive of volar melanoma is the parallel ridge pattern (PRP) (Figures A and B [insets]), which showed a high specificity (99.0%) and very high negative predictive value (97.7%) for malignant melanoma in a Japanese population.⁷ The PRP data from this study cannot be applied reliably to Black individuals, especially because benign ethnic melanosis and other benign conditions can demonstrate PRP.¹² Reliance on the PRP as a diagnostic clue could result in unneccessary biopsies in as many as 50% of Black patients with benign plantar hyperpigmentation.² Furthermore, biopsies of the plantar surface can be painful and cause pain while walking.

It has been suggested that PRP seen on dermoscopy in benign hyperpigmentation such as ethnic melanosis and nevi may preserve the acrosyringia (eccrine gland openings on the ridge), whereas PRP in melanoma may obliterate the acrosyringia.¹³ This observation is based on case reports only and needs further study. However, if validated, it could be a useful diagnostic clue.

Worth noting

In a retrospective cohort study of skin cancer in Black individuals (n=165) at a New York City–based cancer center from 2000 to 2020, 68% of patients were diagnosed with melanomas—80% were the acral subtype and 75% displayed a PRP. However, the surrounding uninvolved background skin, which was visible in most cases, also demonstrated a PRP.¹⁴ Because of the high morbidity and mortality rates of acral melanoma, clinicians should biopsy or immediately refer patients with concerning plantar hyperpigmentation to a dermatologist.

Health disparity highlight

The mortality rate for acral melanoma in Black patients is disproportionately high for the following reasons^15,16:

• Patients and health care providers do not expect to see melanoma in Black patients (it truly is rare!), so screening and education on sun protection are limited.
• Benign ethnic melanosis makes it more difficult to distinguish between early acral melanoma and benign skin changes.
• Black patients and other US patient populations with skin of color may be less likely to have health insurance, which contributes to inequities in access to health care. As of 2022, the uninsured rates for nonelderly American Indian and Alaska Native, Hispanic, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, Black, and White individuals were 19.1%, 18.0%, 12.7%, 10.0%, and 6.6%, respectively.¹⁷

Multi-institutional registries could improve understanding of acral melanoma in Black patients.⁴ More studies are needed to help differentiate between the dermoscopic finding of PRP in benign ethnic melanosis vs malignant melanoma.

To the Editor:

Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA) is a chronic progressive type of scarring alopecia that primarily affects women of African descent.¹ The disorder rarely is reported in men, which may be due to misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis. Early diagnosis and treatment are the cornerstones to slow or halt disease progression and prevent permanent damage to hair follicles. This study aimed to investigate the time to diagnosis and disease severity among males with CCCA.

We conducted a retrospective chart review of male patients older than 18 years seen in outpatient clinics at an academic dermatology department (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) between January 2012 and December 2022. An electronic query using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revisions, code L66.9 (cicatricial alopecia, unspecified) was performed. Patients were included if they had a clinical diagnosis of CCCA, histologic evidence of CCCA, and scalp photographs from the initial dermatology visit. Patients with folliculitis decalvans, scalp biopsy features that limited characterization, or no scalp biopsy were excluded from the study. Onset of CCCA was defined as the patient-reported start time of hair loss and/or scalp symptoms. To determine alopecia severity, the degree of central scalp hair loss was independently assessed by 2 dermatologists (S.C.T., T.O.) using the central scalp alopecia photographic scale in African American women.^2,3 This 6-point photographic scale displays images with grades ranging from 0 (normal) to 5 (bald scalp); higher grades indicate probable and more severe CCCA. The scale also divides the central hair loss in a frontal-accentuation or vertex-predominant pattern, which corresponds to the A or B designations, respectively; thus, a score of 5A indicates probable severe CCCA with a frontal accentuation pattern, while 5B indicates probable severe CCCA with hair loss focused on the vertex scalp. This study was approved by the University of Pennsylvania institutional review board (approval #850730).

Of 108 male patients, 12 met the eligibility criteria. Nearly all patients (91.7% [11/12]) had a CCCA severity grade of 3 or higher at the initial dermatology visit, indicating extensive hair loss (Table). The clinical appearance of severity grades 2 through 5 is demonstrated in the Figure. Among patients with a known disease duration prior to diagnosis, 72.7% (8/11) were diagnosed more than 1 year after onset of CCCA, and 45.4% (5/11) were diagnosed more than 5 years after onset. On average (SD), it took 6.4 (5.9) years for patients to receive a diagnosis of CCCA after the onset of scalp symptoms and/or hair loss.

Randomized controlled trials evaluating treatment of CCCA are lacking, and anecdotal evidence posits a better treatment response in early CCCA; however, our results suggest that most male patients present with advanced CCCA and receive a diagnosis years after disease onset. Similar research in alopecia areata has shown that 72.4% (105/145) of patients received their diagnosis within a year after onset of symptoms, and the mean time from onset of symptoms to diagnosis was 1 year.⁴ In contrast, male patients with CCCA experience considerable diagnostic delays. This disparity indicates the need for clinicians to increase recognition of CCCA in men and quickly refer them to a dermatologist for prompt treatment.

Androgenetic alopecia (AGA) commonly is at the top of the differential diagnosis for hair loss on the vertex of the scalp in males, but clinicians should maintain a high index of suspicion for CCCA, especially when scalp symptoms or atypical features of AGA are present.⁵ Androgenetic alopecia typically is asymptomatic, whereas the symptoms of CCCA may include itching, tenderness, and/or burning.^6,7 Trichoscopy is useful to evaluate for scarring, and a scalp biopsy may reveal other features to lower AGA on the differential. Educating patients, barbers, and hairstylists about the importance of early intervention also may encourage earlier visits before the scarring process is advanced. Further exploration into factors impacting diagnosis and CCCA severity may uncover implications for prognosis and treatment.

This study was limited by a small sample size, retrospective design, and single-center analysis. Some patients had comorbid hair loss conditions, which could affect disease severity. Moreover, the central scalp alopecia photographic scale² was not validated in men or designed for assessment of the nonclassical hair loss distributions noted in some of our patients. Nonetheless, we hope these data will support clinicians in efforts to advocate for early diagnosis and treatment in patients with CCCA to ultimately help improve outcomes.

To the Editor:

Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA) is a chronic progressive type of scarring alopecia that primarily affects women of African descent.¹ The disorder rarely is reported in men, which may be due to misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis. Early diagnosis and treatment are the cornerstones to slow or halt disease progression and prevent permanent damage to hair follicles. This study aimed to investigate the time to diagnosis and disease severity among males with CCCA.

We conducted a retrospective chart review of male patients older than 18 years seen in outpatient clinics at an academic dermatology department (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) between January 2012 and December 2022. An electronic query using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revisions, code L66.9 (cicatricial alopecia, unspecified) was performed. Patients were included if they had a clinical diagnosis of CCCA, histologic evidence of CCCA, and scalp photographs from the initial dermatology visit. Patients with folliculitis decalvans, scalp biopsy features that limited characterization, or no scalp biopsy were excluded from the study. Onset of CCCA was defined as the patient-reported start time of hair loss and/or scalp symptoms. To determine alopecia severity, the degree of central scalp hair loss was independently assessed by 2 dermatologists (S.C.T., T.O.) using the central scalp alopecia photographic scale in African American women.^2,3 This 6-point photographic scale displays images with grades ranging from 0 (normal) to 5 (bald scalp); higher grades indicate probable and more severe CCCA. The scale also divides the central hair loss in a frontal-accentuation or vertex-predominant pattern, which corresponds to the A or B designations, respectively; thus, a score of 5A indicates probable severe CCCA with a frontal accentuation pattern, while 5B indicates probable severe CCCA with hair loss focused on the vertex scalp. This study was approved by the University of Pennsylvania institutional review board (approval #850730).

Of 108 male patients, 12 met the eligibility criteria. Nearly all patients (91.7% [11/12]) had a CCCA severity grade of 3 or higher at the initial dermatology visit, indicating extensive hair loss (Table). The clinical appearance of severity grades 2 through 5 is demonstrated in the Figure. Among patients with a known disease duration prior to diagnosis, 72.7% (8/11) were diagnosed more than 1 year after onset of CCCA, and 45.4% (5/11) were diagnosed more than 5 years after onset. On average (SD), it took 6.4 (5.9) years for patients to receive a diagnosis of CCCA after the onset of scalp symptoms and/or hair loss.

Randomized controlled trials evaluating treatment of CCCA are lacking, and anecdotal evidence posits a better treatment response in early CCCA; however, our results suggest that most male patients present with advanced CCCA and receive a diagnosis years after disease onset. Similar research in alopecia areata has shown that 72.4% (105/145) of patients received their diagnosis within a year after onset of symptoms, and the mean time from onset of symptoms to diagnosis was 1 year.⁴ In contrast, male patients with CCCA experience considerable diagnostic delays. This disparity indicates the need for clinicians to increase recognition of CCCA in men and quickly refer them to a dermatologist for prompt treatment.

Androgenetic alopecia (AGA) commonly is at the top of the differential diagnosis for hair loss on the vertex of the scalp in males, but clinicians should maintain a high index of suspicion for CCCA, especially when scalp symptoms or atypical features of AGA are present.⁵ Androgenetic alopecia typically is asymptomatic, whereas the symptoms of CCCA may include itching, tenderness, and/or burning.^6,7 Trichoscopy is useful to evaluate for scarring, and a scalp biopsy may reveal other features to lower AGA on the differential. Educating patients, barbers, and hairstylists about the importance of early intervention also may encourage earlier visits before the scarring process is advanced. Further exploration into factors impacting diagnosis and CCCA severity may uncover implications for prognosis and treatment.

This study was limited by a small sample size, retrospective design, and single-center analysis. Some patients had comorbid hair loss conditions, which could affect disease severity. Moreover, the central scalp alopecia photographic scale² was not validated in men or designed for assessment of the nonclassical hair loss distributions noted in some of our patients. Nonetheless, we hope these data will support clinicians in efforts to advocate for early diagnosis and treatment in patients with CCCA to ultimately help improve outcomes.

To the Editor:

Central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA) is a chronic progressive type of scarring alopecia that primarily affects women of African descent.¹ The disorder rarely is reported in men, which may be due to misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis. Early diagnosis and treatment are the cornerstones to slow or halt disease progression and prevent permanent damage to hair follicles. This study aimed to investigate the time to diagnosis and disease severity among males with CCCA.

We conducted a retrospective chart review of male patients older than 18 years seen in outpatient clinics at an academic dermatology department (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) between January 2012 and December 2022. An electronic query using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revisions, code L66.9 (cicatricial alopecia, unspecified) was performed. Patients were included if they had a clinical diagnosis of CCCA, histologic evidence of CCCA, and scalp photographs from the initial dermatology visit. Patients with folliculitis decalvans, scalp biopsy features that limited characterization, or no scalp biopsy were excluded from the study. Onset of CCCA was defined as the patient-reported start time of hair loss and/or scalp symptoms. To determine alopecia severity, the degree of central scalp hair loss was independently assessed by 2 dermatologists (S.C.T., T.O.) using the central scalp alopecia photographic scale in African American women.^2,3 This 6-point photographic scale displays images with grades ranging from 0 (normal) to 5 (bald scalp); higher grades indicate probable and more severe CCCA. The scale also divides the central hair loss in a frontal-accentuation or vertex-predominant pattern, which corresponds to the A or B designations, respectively; thus, a score of 5A indicates probable severe CCCA with a frontal accentuation pattern, while 5B indicates probable severe CCCA with hair loss focused on the vertex scalp. This study was approved by the University of Pennsylvania institutional review board (approval #850730).

Of 108 male patients, 12 met the eligibility criteria. Nearly all patients (91.7% [11/12]) had a CCCA severity grade of 3 or higher at the initial dermatology visit, indicating extensive hair loss (Table). The clinical appearance of severity grades 2 through 5 is demonstrated in the Figure. Among patients with a known disease duration prior to diagnosis, 72.7% (8/11) were diagnosed more than 1 year after onset of CCCA, and 45.4% (5/11) were diagnosed more than 5 years after onset. On average (SD), it took 6.4 (5.9) years for patients to receive a diagnosis of CCCA after the onset of scalp symptoms and/or hair loss.

Randomized controlled trials evaluating treatment of CCCA are lacking, and anecdotal evidence posits a better treatment response in early CCCA; however, our results suggest that most male patients present with advanced CCCA and receive a diagnosis years after disease onset. Similar research in alopecia areata has shown that 72.4% (105/145) of patients received their diagnosis within a year after onset of symptoms, and the mean time from onset of symptoms to diagnosis was 1 year.⁴ In contrast, male patients with CCCA experience considerable diagnostic delays. This disparity indicates the need for clinicians to increase recognition of CCCA in men and quickly refer them to a dermatologist for prompt treatment.

Androgenetic alopecia (AGA) commonly is at the top of the differential diagnosis for hair loss on the vertex of the scalp in males, but clinicians should maintain a high index of suspicion for CCCA, especially when scalp symptoms or atypical features of AGA are present.⁵ Androgenetic alopecia typically is asymptomatic, whereas the symptoms of CCCA may include itching, tenderness, and/or burning.^6,7 Trichoscopy is useful to evaluate for scarring, and a scalp biopsy may reveal other features to lower AGA on the differential. Educating patients, barbers, and hairstylists about the importance of early intervention also may encourage earlier visits before the scarring process is advanced. Further exploration into factors impacting diagnosis and CCCA severity may uncover implications for prognosis and treatment.

This study was limited by a small sample size, retrospective design, and single-center analysis. Some patients had comorbid hair loss conditions, which could affect disease severity. Moreover, the central scalp alopecia photographic scale² was not validated in men or designed for assessment of the nonclassical hair loss distributions noted in some of our patients. Nonetheless, we hope these data will support clinicians in efforts to advocate for early diagnosis and treatment in patients with CCCA to ultimately help improve outcomes.

The ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in 2023^1,2 on the use of race-based criteria in college admissions was met with a range of reactions across the country. Given the implications of this decision on the future makeup of higher education, the downstream effects on medical school admissions, and the possible further impact on graduate medical education programs, we sought to explore the potential impact of the landmark decision from the perspective of dermatology residency program directors and offer insights on this pivotal judgment.

Background on the SCOTUS Ruling

In June 2023, SCOTUS issued its formal decision on 2 court cases brought by the organization Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) against the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill¹ and Harvard University (Cambridge, Massachusetts)² that addressed college admissions practices dealing with the use of race as a selection criterion in the application process. The cases alleged that these universities had overly emphasized race in the admissions process and thus were in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as the 14th Amendment.^1,2

The SCOTUS justices voted 6 to 3 in favor of the argument presented by the SFFA, determining that the use of race in the college admissions process essentially constituted a form of racial discrimination. The ruling was in contrast to a prior decision in 2003 that centered on law school admissions at the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, Michigan) in which SCOTUS previously had determined that race could be used as one factor amongst other criteria in the higher education selection process.³ In the 2023 decision siding with SFFA, SCOTUS did acknowledge that it was still acceptable for selection processes to consider “an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”²

Effect on Undergraduate Admissions

Prior to the 2023 ruling, several states had already passed independent laws against the use of affirmative action or race-based selection criteria in the admissions process at public colleges and universities.⁴ As a result, these institutions would already be conforming to the principles set forth in the SCOTUS ruling and major changes to their undergraduate admissions policies would not be expected; however, a considerable number of colleges and universities—particularly those considered highly selective with applicant acceptance rates that are well below the national average—reported the use of race as a factor in their admissions processes in standardized reporting surveys.⁵ For these institutions, it is no longer considered acceptable (based on the SCOTUS decision) to use race as a singular factor in admissions or to implement race-conscious decision-making—in which individuals are considered differently based solely on their race—as part of the undergraduate selection process.

In light of these rulings, many institutions have explicitly committed to upholding principles of diversity in their recruitment processes, acknowledging the multifaceted nature of diversity beyond strictly racial terms—including but not limited to socioeconomic diversity, religious diversity, or gender diversity—which is in compliance with the interpretation ruling by the US Department of Education and the US Department of Justice.⁶ Additionally, select institutions have taken approaches to explicitly include questions on ways in which applicants have overcome obstacles or challenges, allowing an opportunity for individuals who have had such experiences related to race an opportunity to incorporate these elements into their applications. Finally, some institutions have taken a more limited approach, eliminating ways in which race is explicitly addressed in the application and focusing on race-neutral elements of the application in their approach to selection.⁷

Because the first college admission cycle since the 2023 SCOTUS ruling is still underway, we have yet to witness the full impact of this decision on the current undergraduate admissions landscape.

Effect on Medical School Admissions and Rotations

Although SCOTUS specifically examined the undergraduate admissions process, the ruling on race-conscious admissions also had a profound impact on graduate school admissions including medical school admission processes.^1,2,8,9 This is because the language of the majority opinion refers to “university programs” in its ruling, which also has been broadly interpreted to include graduate school programs. As with undergraduate admissions, it has been interpreted by national medical education organizations and institutions that medical schools also cannot consider an applicant’s race or ethnicity as a specific factor in the admissions process.^1,2,8,9

Lived individual experiences, including essays that speak to an applicant’s lived experiences and career aspirations related to race, still can be taken into account. In particular, holistic review still can be utilized to evaluate medical school candidates and may play a more integral role in the medical school admissions process now than in the past.^8,10,11 After the ruling, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that “today’s decision leaves intact holistic college admissions and recruitment efforts that seek to enroll diverse classes without using racial classifications.”¹

The ruling asserted that universities may define their mission as they see fit. As a result, the ruling did not affect medical school missions or strategic plans, including those that may aim to diversify the health care workforce.^8,10,11 The ruling also did not affect the ability to utilize pathway programs to encourage a career in medicine or recruitment relationships with diverse undergraduate or community-based organizations. Student interest groups also can be involved in the relationship-building or recruitment activities for medical schools.^8,10,11 Guidance from the US Department of Education and US Department of Justice noted that institutions may consider race in identifying prospective applicants through recruitment and outreach, “provided that their outreach and recruitment programs do not provide targeted groups of prospective students preference in the admissions process, and provided that all students—whether part of a specifically targeted group or not—enjoy the same opportunity to apply and compete for admission.”¹²

In regard to pathways programs, slots cannot be reserved and preference cannot be given to applicants who participated in these programs if race was a factor in selecting participants.⁸ Similarly, medical school away electives related to diversity cannot be reserved for those of a specific race or ethnicity; however, these electives can utilize commitment to stated aims and missions of the rotation, such as a commitment to diversity within medicine, as a basis to selecting candidates.⁸

The ruling did not address how race or ethnicity is factored into financial aid or scholarship determination. There has been concern in higher education that the legal framework utilized in the SCOTUS decision could affect financial aid and scholarship decisions; therefore, many institutions are proceeding with caution in their approach.⁸

Effect on Residency Selection

Because the SCOTUS ruling references colleges and universities, not health care employers, it should not affect the residency selection process; however, there is variability in how health care institutions are interpreting the impact of the ruling on residency selection, with some taking a more prescriptive and cautious view on the matter. Additionally, with that said, residency selection is considered an employment practice covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,¹³ which already prohibits the consideration of race in hiring decisions.⁷ Under Title VII, it is unlawful for employers to discriminate against someone because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and it is “unlawful to use policies or practices that seem neutral but have the effect of discriminating against people because of their race, color, religion, sex … or national origin.” Title VII also states that employers cannot “make employment decisions based on stereotypes or assumptions about a person’s abilities, traits, or performance because of their race, color, religion, sex … or national origin.”¹³

Importantly, Title VII does not imply that employers need to abandon their diversity, equity, or inclusion initiatives, and it does not imply that employers must revoke their mission to improve diversity in the workforce. Title VII does not state that racial information cannot be available. It would be permissible to use racial data to assess recruitment trends, identify inequities, and create programs to eliminate barriers and decrease bias¹⁴; for example, if a program identified that, based on their current review system, students who are underrepresented in medicine were disproportionately screened out of the applicant pool or interview group, they may wish to revisit their review process to identify and eliminate possible biases. Programs also may wish to adopt educational programs for reviewers (eg, implicit bias training) or educational content on the potential for bias in commonly used review criteria, such as the US Medical Licensing Examination, clerkship grades, and the Medical Student Performance Evaluation.¹⁵ Reviewers can and should consider applications in an individualized and holistic manner in which experiences, traits, skills, and academic metrics are assessed together for compatibility with the values and mission of the training program.¹⁶

Future Directions for Dermatology

Beyond the SCOTUS ruling, there have been other shifts in the dermatology residency application process that have affected candidate review. Dermatology programs recently have adopted the use of preference signaling in residency applications. Preliminary data from the Association of American Medical Colleges for the 2024 application cycle indicated that of the 81 programs analyzed, there was a nearly 0% chance of an applicant receiving an interview invitation from a program that they did not signal. The median signal-to-interview conversion rate for the 81 dermatology programs analyzed was 55% for gold signals and 15% for silver signals.¹⁷ It can be inferred from these data that programs are using preference signaling as important criteria for consideration of interview invitation. Programs may choose to focus most of their attention on the applicant pool who has signaled them. Because the number and type of signals available is equal among all applicants, we hope that this provides an equitable way for all applicants to garner holistic review from programs that interested them. In addition, there has been a 30% decrease in average applications submitted per dermatology applicant.¹⁸ With a substantial decline in applications to dermatology, we hope that reviewers are able to spend more time devoted to comprehensive holistic review.

Although signals are equitable for applicants, their distribution among programs may not be; for example, in a given year, a program might find that all their gold signals came from non–underrepresented in medicine students. We encourage programs to carefully review applicant data to ensure their recruitment process is not inadvertently discriminatory and is in alignment with their goals and mission.

The ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in 2023^1,2 on the use of race-based criteria in college admissions was met with a range of reactions across the country. Given the implications of this decision on the future makeup of higher education, the downstream effects on medical school admissions, and the possible further impact on graduate medical education programs, we sought to explore the potential impact of the landmark decision from the perspective of dermatology residency program directors and offer insights on this pivotal judgment.

Background on the SCOTUS Ruling

In June 2023, SCOTUS issued its formal decision on 2 court cases brought by the organization Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) against the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill¹ and Harvard University (Cambridge, Massachusetts)² that addressed college admissions practices dealing with the use of race as a selection criterion in the application process. The cases alleged that these universities had overly emphasized race in the admissions process and thus were in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as the 14th Amendment.^1,2

The SCOTUS justices voted 6 to 3 in favor of the argument presented by the SFFA, determining that the use of race in the college admissions process essentially constituted a form of racial discrimination. The ruling was in contrast to a prior decision in 2003 that centered on law school admissions at the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, Michigan) in which SCOTUS previously had determined that race could be used as one factor amongst other criteria in the higher education selection process.³ In the 2023 decision siding with SFFA, SCOTUS did acknowledge that it was still acceptable for selection processes to consider “an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”²

Effect on Undergraduate Admissions

Prior to the 2023 ruling, several states had already passed independent laws against the use of affirmative action or race-based selection criteria in the admissions process at public colleges and universities.⁴ As a result, these institutions would already be conforming to the principles set forth in the SCOTUS ruling and major changes to their undergraduate admissions policies would not be expected; however, a considerable number of colleges and universities—particularly those considered highly selective with applicant acceptance rates that are well below the national average—reported the use of race as a factor in their admissions processes in standardized reporting surveys.⁵ For these institutions, it is no longer considered acceptable (based on the SCOTUS decision) to use race as a singular factor in admissions or to implement race-conscious decision-making—in which individuals are considered differently based solely on their race—as part of the undergraduate selection process.

In light of these rulings, many institutions have explicitly committed to upholding principles of diversity in their recruitment processes, acknowledging the multifaceted nature of diversity beyond strictly racial terms—including but not limited to socioeconomic diversity, religious diversity, or gender diversity—which is in compliance with the interpretation ruling by the US Department of Education and the US Department of Justice.⁶ Additionally, select institutions have taken approaches to explicitly include questions on ways in which applicants have overcome obstacles or challenges, allowing an opportunity for individuals who have had such experiences related to race an opportunity to incorporate these elements into their applications. Finally, some institutions have taken a more limited approach, eliminating ways in which race is explicitly addressed in the application and focusing on race-neutral elements of the application in their approach to selection.⁷

Because the first college admission cycle since the 2023 SCOTUS ruling is still underway, we have yet to witness the full impact of this decision on the current undergraduate admissions landscape.

Effect on Medical School Admissions and Rotations

Although SCOTUS specifically examined the undergraduate admissions process, the ruling on race-conscious admissions also had a profound impact on graduate school admissions including medical school admission processes.^1,2,8,9 This is because the language of the majority opinion refers to “university programs” in its ruling, which also has been broadly interpreted to include graduate school programs. As with undergraduate admissions, it has been interpreted by national medical education organizations and institutions that medical schools also cannot consider an applicant’s race or ethnicity as a specific factor in the admissions process.^1,2,8,9

Lived individual experiences, including essays that speak to an applicant’s lived experiences and career aspirations related to race, still can be taken into account. In particular, holistic review still can be utilized to evaluate medical school candidates and may play a more integral role in the medical school admissions process now than in the past.^8,10,11 After the ruling, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that “today’s decision leaves intact holistic college admissions and recruitment efforts that seek to enroll diverse classes without using racial classifications.”¹

The ruling asserted that universities may define their mission as they see fit. As a result, the ruling did not affect medical school missions or strategic plans, including those that may aim to diversify the health care workforce.^8,10,11 The ruling also did not affect the ability to utilize pathway programs to encourage a career in medicine or recruitment relationships with diverse undergraduate or community-based organizations. Student interest groups also can be involved in the relationship-building or recruitment activities for medical schools.^8,10,11 Guidance from the US Department of Education and US Department of Justice noted that institutions may consider race in identifying prospective applicants through recruitment and outreach, “provided that their outreach and recruitment programs do not provide targeted groups of prospective students preference in the admissions process, and provided that all students—whether part of a specifically targeted group or not—enjoy the same opportunity to apply and compete for admission.”¹²

In regard to pathways programs, slots cannot be reserved and preference cannot be given to applicants who participated in these programs if race was a factor in selecting participants.⁸ Similarly, medical school away electives related to diversity cannot be reserved for those of a specific race or ethnicity; however, these electives can utilize commitment to stated aims and missions of the rotation, such as a commitment to diversity within medicine, as a basis to selecting candidates.⁸

The ruling did not address how race or ethnicity is factored into financial aid or scholarship determination. There has been concern in higher education that the legal framework utilized in the SCOTUS decision could affect financial aid and scholarship decisions; therefore, many institutions are proceeding with caution in their approach.⁸

Effect on Residency Selection

Because the SCOTUS ruling references colleges and universities, not health care employers, it should not affect the residency selection process; however, there is variability in how health care institutions are interpreting the impact of the ruling on residency selection, with some taking a more prescriptive and cautious view on the matter. Additionally, with that said, residency selection is considered an employment practice covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,¹³ which already prohibits the consideration of race in hiring decisions.⁷ Under Title VII, it is unlawful for employers to discriminate against someone because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and it is “unlawful to use policies or practices that seem neutral but have the effect of discriminating against people because of their race, color, religion, sex … or national origin.” Title VII also states that employers cannot “make employment decisions based on stereotypes or assumptions about a person’s abilities, traits, or performance because of their race, color, religion, sex … or national origin.”¹³

Importantly, Title VII does not imply that employers need to abandon their diversity, equity, or inclusion initiatives, and it does not imply that employers must revoke their mission to improve diversity in the workforce. Title VII does not state that racial information cannot be available. It would be permissible to use racial data to assess recruitment trends, identify inequities, and create programs to eliminate barriers and decrease bias¹⁴; for example, if a program identified that, based on their current review system, students who are underrepresented in medicine were disproportionately screened out of the applicant pool or interview group, they may wish to revisit their review process to identify and eliminate possible biases. Programs also may wish to adopt educational programs for reviewers (eg, implicit bias training) or educational content on the potential for bias in commonly used review criteria, such as the US Medical Licensing Examination, clerkship grades, and the Medical Student Performance Evaluation.¹⁵ Reviewers can and should consider applications in an individualized and holistic manner in which experiences, traits, skills, and academic metrics are assessed together for compatibility with the values and mission of the training program.¹⁶

Future Directions for Dermatology

Beyond the SCOTUS ruling, there have been other shifts in the dermatology residency application process that have affected candidate review. Dermatology programs recently have adopted the use of preference signaling in residency applications. Preliminary data from the Association of American Medical Colleges for the 2024 application cycle indicated that of the 81 programs analyzed, there was a nearly 0% chance of an applicant receiving an interview invitation from a program that they did not signal. The median signal-to-interview conversion rate for the 81 dermatology programs analyzed was 55% for gold signals and 15% for silver signals.¹⁷ It can be inferred from these data that programs are using preference signaling as important criteria for consideration of interview invitation. Programs may choose to focus most of their attention on the applicant pool who has signaled them. Because the number and type of signals available is equal among all applicants, we hope that this provides an equitable way for all applicants to garner holistic review from programs that interested them. In addition, there has been a 30% decrease in average applications submitted per dermatology applicant.¹⁸ With a substantial decline in applications to dermatology, we hope that reviewers are able to spend more time devoted to comprehensive holistic review.

Although signals are equitable for applicants, their distribution among programs may not be; for example, in a given year, a program might find that all their gold signals came from non–underrepresented in medicine students. We encourage programs to carefully review applicant data to ensure their recruitment process is not inadvertently discriminatory and is in alignment with their goals and mission.

The ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in 2023^1,2 on the use of race-based criteria in college admissions was met with a range of reactions across the country. Given the implications of this decision on the future makeup of higher education, the downstream effects on medical school admissions, and the possible further impact on graduate medical education programs, we sought to explore the potential impact of the landmark decision from the perspective of dermatology residency program directors and offer insights on this pivotal judgment.

Background on the SCOTUS Ruling

In June 2023, SCOTUS issued its formal decision on 2 court cases brought by the organization Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) against the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill¹ and Harvard University (Cambridge, Massachusetts)² that addressed college admissions practices dealing with the use of race as a selection criterion in the application process. The cases alleged that these universities had overly emphasized race in the admissions process and thus were in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as the 14th Amendment.^1,2

The SCOTUS justices voted 6 to 3 in favor of the argument presented by the SFFA, determining that the use of race in the college admissions process essentially constituted a form of racial discrimination. The ruling was in contrast to a prior decision in 2003 that centered on law school admissions at the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, Michigan) in which SCOTUS previously had determined that race could be used as one factor amongst other criteria in the higher education selection process.³ In the 2023 decision siding with SFFA, SCOTUS did acknowledge that it was still acceptable for selection processes to consider “an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.”²

Effect on Undergraduate Admissions

Prior to the 2023 ruling, several states had already passed independent laws against the use of affirmative action or race-based selection criteria in the admissions process at public colleges and universities.⁴ As a result, these institutions would already be conforming to the principles set forth in the SCOTUS ruling and major changes to their undergraduate admissions policies would not be expected; however, a considerable number of colleges and universities—particularly those considered highly selective with applicant acceptance rates that are well below the national average—reported the use of race as a factor in their admissions processes in standardized reporting surveys.⁵ For these institutions, it is no longer considered acceptable (based on the SCOTUS decision) to use race as a singular factor in admissions or to implement race-conscious decision-making—in which individuals are considered differently based solely on their race—as part of the undergraduate selection process.

In light of these rulings, many institutions have explicitly committed to upholding principles of diversity in their recruitment processes, acknowledging the multifaceted nature of diversity beyond strictly racial terms—including but not limited to socioeconomic diversity, religious diversity, or gender diversity—which is in compliance with the interpretation ruling by the US Department of Education and the US Department of Justice.⁶ Additionally, select institutions have taken approaches to explicitly include questions on ways in which applicants have overcome obstacles or challenges, allowing an opportunity for individuals who have had such experiences related to race an opportunity to incorporate these elements into their applications. Finally, some institutions have taken a more limited approach, eliminating ways in which race is explicitly addressed in the application and focusing on race-neutral elements of the application in their approach to selection.⁷

Because the first college admission cycle since the 2023 SCOTUS ruling is still underway, we have yet to witness the full impact of this decision on the current undergraduate admissions landscape.

Effect on Medical School Admissions and Rotations

Although SCOTUS specifically examined the undergraduate admissions process, the ruling on race-conscious admissions also had a profound impact on graduate school admissions including medical school admission processes.^1,2,8,9 This is because the language of the majority opinion refers to “university programs” in its ruling, which also has been broadly interpreted to include graduate school programs. As with undergraduate admissions, it has been interpreted by national medical education organizations and institutions that medical schools also cannot consider an applicant’s race or ethnicity as a specific factor in the admissions process.^1,2,8,9

Lived individual experiences, including essays that speak to an applicant’s lived experiences and career aspirations related to race, still can be taken into account. In particular, holistic review still can be utilized to evaluate medical school candidates and may play a more integral role in the medical school admissions process now than in the past.^8,10,11 After the ruling, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that “today’s decision leaves intact holistic college admissions and recruitment efforts that seek to enroll diverse classes without using racial classifications.”¹

The ruling asserted that universities may define their mission as they see fit. As a result, the ruling did not affect medical school missions or strategic plans, including those that may aim to diversify the health care workforce.^8,10,11 The ruling also did not affect the ability to utilize pathway programs to encourage a career in medicine or recruitment relationships with diverse undergraduate or community-based organizations. Student interest groups also can be involved in the relationship-building or recruitment activities for medical schools.^8,10,11 Guidance from the US Department of Education and US Department of Justice noted that institutions may consider race in identifying prospective applicants through recruitment and outreach, “provided that their outreach and recruitment programs do not provide targeted groups of prospective students preference in the admissions process, and provided that all students—whether part of a specifically targeted group or not—enjoy the same opportunity to apply and compete for admission.”¹²

In regard to pathways programs, slots cannot be reserved and preference cannot be given to applicants who participated in these programs if race was a factor in selecting participants.⁸ Similarly, medical school away electives related to diversity cannot be reserved for those of a specific race or ethnicity; however, these electives can utilize commitment to stated aims and missions of the rotation, such as a commitment to diversity within medicine, as a basis to selecting candidates.⁸

The ruling did not address how race or ethnicity is factored into financial aid or scholarship determination. There has been concern in higher education that the legal framework utilized in the SCOTUS decision could affect financial aid and scholarship decisions; therefore, many institutions are proceeding with caution in their approach.⁸

Effect on Residency Selection

Because the SCOTUS ruling references colleges and universities, not health care employers, it should not affect the residency selection process; however, there is variability in how health care institutions are interpreting the impact of the ruling on residency selection, with some taking a more prescriptive and cautious view on the matter. Additionally, with that said, residency selection is considered an employment practice covered by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,¹³ which already prohibits the consideration of race in hiring decisions.⁷ Under Title VII, it is unlawful for employers to discriminate against someone because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and it is “unlawful to use policies or practices that seem neutral but have the effect of discriminating against people because of their race, color, religion, sex … or national origin.” Title VII also states that employers cannot “make employment decisions based on stereotypes or assumptions about a person’s abilities, traits, or performance because of their race, color, religion, sex … or national origin.”¹³

Importantly, Title VII does not imply that employers need to abandon their diversity, equity, or inclusion initiatives, and it does not imply that employers must revoke their mission to improve diversity in the workforce. Title VII does not state that racial information cannot be available. It would be permissible to use racial data to assess recruitment trends, identify inequities, and create programs to eliminate barriers and decrease bias¹⁴; for example, if a program identified that, based on their current review system, students who are underrepresented in medicine were disproportionately screened out of the applicant pool or interview group, they may wish to revisit their review process to identify and eliminate possible biases. Programs also may wish to adopt educational programs for reviewers (eg, implicit bias training) or educational content on the potential for bias in commonly used review criteria, such as the US Medical Licensing Examination, clerkship grades, and the Medical Student Performance Evaluation.¹⁵ Reviewers can and should consider applications in an individualized and holistic manner in which experiences, traits, skills, and academic metrics are assessed together for compatibility with the values and mission of the training program.¹⁶

Future Directions for Dermatology

Beyond the SCOTUS ruling, there have been other shifts in the dermatology residency application process that have affected candidate review. Dermatology programs recently have adopted the use of preference signaling in residency applications. Preliminary data from the Association of American Medical Colleges for the 2024 application cycle indicated that of the 81 programs analyzed, there was a nearly 0% chance of an applicant receiving an interview invitation from a program that they did not signal. The median signal-to-interview conversion rate for the 81 dermatology programs analyzed was 55% for gold signals and 15% for silver signals.¹⁷ It can be inferred from these data that programs are using preference signaling as important criteria for consideration of interview invitation. Programs may choose to focus most of their attention on the applicant pool who has signaled them. Because the number and type of signals available is equal among all applicants, we hope that this provides an equitable way for all applicants to garner holistic review from programs that interested them. In addition, there has been a 30% decrease in average applications submitted per dermatology applicant.¹⁸ With a substantial decline in applications to dermatology, we hope that reviewers are able to spend more time devoted to comprehensive holistic review.

Although signals are equitable for applicants, their distribution among programs may not be; for example, in a given year, a program might find that all their gold signals came from non–underrepresented in medicine students. We encourage programs to carefully review applicant data to ensure their recruitment process is not inadvertently discriminatory and is in alignment with their goals and mission.

NASHVILLE, Tennessee — In a population of Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), ocrelizumab had high efficacy and an acceptable safety profile, according to the results of a 1-year analysis of the CHIMES trial. The study is the first-ever prospective study of an MS disease-modifying therapy (DMT) exclusively performed in under-represented populations, and offers lessons to researchers aiming to design more inclusive clinical trials to bolster participation by under-represented populations.

“The goal was to better understand efficacy of therapy in under-represented populations because we typically have very low numbers of these patients in our clinical trials, although there are multiple studies over the past decades suggesting that there may be poorer outcomes in Black and Hispanic individuals, particularly in the United States, and that there also may be more aggressive disease,” said Mitzi Williams, MD, who presented the study in a poster session at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

The team recruited 113 Black participants and 69 Hispanic participants, and, in fact, over-recruited the target number by 25%, and did so 2 months before the launch of the study in July 2020, which just happened to be in the midst of a global pandemic.

After 48 weeks of ocrelizumab treatment, 46.0% of Black participants and 58.0% of Hispanic participants achieved no evidence of disease activity in three components (NEDA-3), while 94.7% and 95.7% were free from relapses, respectively, and 94.7% and 94.2% were free from disease worsening. Serious adverse events occurred in 6.2% and 4.3% of each group, respectively, and there were no new safety signals in either group.

“The good news is that the efficacy and safety was very similar to what we saw in other clinical trials. I don’t think we really expected it to be much different, because when we think about race, it’s a social construct, not a biologic construct. What we do hope to find out is more about some of the interplay of social determinants of health, and how getting on high efficacy treatment can improve and increase productivity and outcomes in the long term,” said Dr. Williams, who is medical director of Joi Life Wellness Group, Smyrna, Georgia.

The researchers succeeded by involving patient advocates and advocacy organizations at the very earliest stages of the trial design. “We were very intentional about looking at things like social determinants of health, childcare, transportation, and things like that to ease some of the burden of participating in the trial, obviously in a legal and compliant way,” said Dr. Williams. The team also ensured complete and accurate translation of patient materials into Spanish.

The study was also a phase 4 trial, which may have simplified recruitment. “So it’s a therapy that’s already approved, which may make people feel more comfortable, but obviously the goal is for our phase 3 trials to make sure that we are recruiting represented populations. We’re taking these learnings and applying them to the broader clinical trial population so that hopefully we won’t have to come back and do phase 4 studies like this,” said Dr. Williams.

She noted that the results of more inclusive studies don’t just benefit underserved populations. “You have groups of people that are suffering and having more disability from a condition, and you need to understand why. When we broaden the population to understand those that are most vulnerable and underserved and [having the worst outcomes], it really helps us to better treat everybody. Because if we can get a hold of those factors that make us do the worst, then we can also better understand the factors that make us do the best,” said Dr. Williams.
 

Inclusive Recruitment in Clinical Trials

Asked for comment, Ahmed Obeidat, MD, PhD, highlighted the importance of inclusive recruitment. “The study is very important because historically and even in most recent clinical trials, these groups were markedly under-represented and most completed clinical trials derive conclusions based on the study of a nondiverse, White-non-Hispanic predominant population,” said Dr. Obeidat, who is an associate professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. He pointed to a systematic review showing that the median percentage of White participants in MS clinical trials was 93% and ranged from 86% to 98%.

“Several factors may contribute to the disparity in clinical trial participation, and solutions must be explored and developed. CHIMES is a first step in this direction where the study itself is designed to address disparity in MS clinical trial participation,” said Dr. Obeidat.

Dr. Obeidat also pointed to the need to consider other forms of diversity in clinical trials, such as older patients and those with advanced disability. “Investigators, coordinators, and other staff should all strive to be as inclusive as possible in clinical trials,” he said.

Dr. Williams has received consulting fees from Alexion, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech Inc., Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi, and TG Therapeutics, and serves on speakers bureaus for Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Janssen, Genentech, and TG Therapeutics. Dr. Ahmed Z. Obeidat has financial relationships with Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Banner Life Sciences, BD Biosciences, Biogen, Biologix Solutions, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, EMD Serono, Genentech, GW Pharmaceuticals, Horizon Therapeutics, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Sandoz, Sanofi Genzyme, TG Therapeutics, and Viela Bio.

NASHVILLE, Tennessee — In a population of Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), ocrelizumab had high efficacy and an acceptable safety profile, according to the results of a 1-year analysis of the CHIMES trial. The study is the first-ever prospective study of an MS disease-modifying therapy (DMT) exclusively performed in under-represented populations, and offers lessons to researchers aiming to design more inclusive clinical trials to bolster participation by under-represented populations.

“The goal was to better understand efficacy of therapy in under-represented populations because we typically have very low numbers of these patients in our clinical trials, although there are multiple studies over the past decades suggesting that there may be poorer outcomes in Black and Hispanic individuals, particularly in the United States, and that there also may be more aggressive disease,” said Mitzi Williams, MD, who presented the study in a poster session at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

The team recruited 113 Black participants and 69 Hispanic participants, and, in fact, over-recruited the target number by 25%, and did so 2 months before the launch of the study in July 2020, which just happened to be in the midst of a global pandemic.

After 48 weeks of ocrelizumab treatment, 46.0% of Black participants and 58.0% of Hispanic participants achieved no evidence of disease activity in three components (NEDA-3), while 94.7% and 95.7% were free from relapses, respectively, and 94.7% and 94.2% were free from disease worsening. Serious adverse events occurred in 6.2% and 4.3% of each group, respectively, and there were no new safety signals in either group.

“The good news is that the efficacy and safety was very similar to what we saw in other clinical trials. I don’t think we really expected it to be much different, because when we think about race, it’s a social construct, not a biologic construct. What we do hope to find out is more about some of the interplay of social determinants of health, and how getting on high efficacy treatment can improve and increase productivity and outcomes in the long term,” said Dr. Williams, who is medical director of Joi Life Wellness Group, Smyrna, Georgia.

The researchers succeeded by involving patient advocates and advocacy organizations at the very earliest stages of the trial design. “We were very intentional about looking at things like social determinants of health, childcare, transportation, and things like that to ease some of the burden of participating in the trial, obviously in a legal and compliant way,” said Dr. Williams. The team also ensured complete and accurate translation of patient materials into Spanish.

The study was also a phase 4 trial, which may have simplified recruitment. “So it’s a therapy that’s already approved, which may make people feel more comfortable, but obviously the goal is for our phase 3 trials to make sure that we are recruiting represented populations. We’re taking these learnings and applying them to the broader clinical trial population so that hopefully we won’t have to come back and do phase 4 studies like this,” said Dr. Williams.

She noted that the results of more inclusive studies don’t just benefit underserved populations. “You have groups of people that are suffering and having more disability from a condition, and you need to understand why. When we broaden the population to understand those that are most vulnerable and underserved and [having the worst outcomes], it really helps us to better treat everybody. Because if we can get a hold of those factors that make us do the worst, then we can also better understand the factors that make us do the best,” said Dr. Williams.
 

Inclusive Recruitment in Clinical Trials

Asked for comment, Ahmed Obeidat, MD, PhD, highlighted the importance of inclusive recruitment. “The study is very important because historically and even in most recent clinical trials, these groups were markedly under-represented and most completed clinical trials derive conclusions based on the study of a nondiverse, White-non-Hispanic predominant population,” said Dr. Obeidat, who is an associate professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. He pointed to a systematic review showing that the median percentage of White participants in MS clinical trials was 93% and ranged from 86% to 98%.

“Several factors may contribute to the disparity in clinical trial participation, and solutions must be explored and developed. CHIMES is a first step in this direction where the study itself is designed to address disparity in MS clinical trial participation,” said Dr. Obeidat.

Dr. Obeidat also pointed to the need to consider other forms of diversity in clinical trials, such as older patients and those with advanced disability. “Investigators, coordinators, and other staff should all strive to be as inclusive as possible in clinical trials,” he said.

Dr. Williams has received consulting fees from Alexion, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech Inc., Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi, and TG Therapeutics, and serves on speakers bureaus for Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Janssen, Genentech, and TG Therapeutics. Dr. Ahmed Z. Obeidat has financial relationships with Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Banner Life Sciences, BD Biosciences, Biogen, Biologix Solutions, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, EMD Serono, Genentech, GW Pharmaceuticals, Horizon Therapeutics, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Sandoz, Sanofi Genzyme, TG Therapeutics, and Viela Bio.

NASHVILLE, Tennessee — In a population of Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), ocrelizumab had high efficacy and an acceptable safety profile, according to the results of a 1-year analysis of the CHIMES trial. The study is the first-ever prospective study of an MS disease-modifying therapy (DMT) exclusively performed in under-represented populations, and offers lessons to researchers aiming to design more inclusive clinical trials to bolster participation by under-represented populations.

“The goal was to better understand efficacy of therapy in under-represented populations because we typically have very low numbers of these patients in our clinical trials, although there are multiple studies over the past decades suggesting that there may be poorer outcomes in Black and Hispanic individuals, particularly in the United States, and that there also may be more aggressive disease,” said Mitzi Williams, MD, who presented the study in a poster session at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers.

The team recruited 113 Black participants and 69 Hispanic participants, and, in fact, over-recruited the target number by 25%, and did so 2 months before the launch of the study in July 2020, which just happened to be in the midst of a global pandemic.

After 48 weeks of ocrelizumab treatment, 46.0% of Black participants and 58.0% of Hispanic participants achieved no evidence of disease activity in three components (NEDA-3), while 94.7% and 95.7% were free from relapses, respectively, and 94.7% and 94.2% were free from disease worsening. Serious adverse events occurred in 6.2% and 4.3% of each group, respectively, and there were no new safety signals in either group.

“The good news is that the efficacy and safety was very similar to what we saw in other clinical trials. I don’t think we really expected it to be much different, because when we think about race, it’s a social construct, not a biologic construct. What we do hope to find out is more about some of the interplay of social determinants of health, and how getting on high efficacy treatment can improve and increase productivity and outcomes in the long term,” said Dr. Williams, who is medical director of Joi Life Wellness Group, Smyrna, Georgia.

The researchers succeeded by involving patient advocates and advocacy organizations at the very earliest stages of the trial design. “We were very intentional about looking at things like social determinants of health, childcare, transportation, and things like that to ease some of the burden of participating in the trial, obviously in a legal and compliant way,” said Dr. Williams. The team also ensured complete and accurate translation of patient materials into Spanish.

The study was also a phase 4 trial, which may have simplified recruitment. “So it’s a therapy that’s already approved, which may make people feel more comfortable, but obviously the goal is for our phase 3 trials to make sure that we are recruiting represented populations. We’re taking these learnings and applying them to the broader clinical trial population so that hopefully we won’t have to come back and do phase 4 studies like this,” said Dr. Williams.

She noted that the results of more inclusive studies don’t just benefit underserved populations. “You have groups of people that are suffering and having more disability from a condition, and you need to understand why. When we broaden the population to understand those that are most vulnerable and underserved and [having the worst outcomes], it really helps us to better treat everybody. Because if we can get a hold of those factors that make us do the worst, then we can also better understand the factors that make us do the best,” said Dr. Williams.
 

Inclusive Recruitment in Clinical Trials

Asked for comment, Ahmed Obeidat, MD, PhD, highlighted the importance of inclusive recruitment. “The study is very important because historically and even in most recent clinical trials, these groups were markedly under-represented and most completed clinical trials derive conclusions based on the study of a nondiverse, White-non-Hispanic predominant population,” said Dr. Obeidat, who is an associate professor at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. He pointed to a systematic review showing that the median percentage of White participants in MS clinical trials was 93% and ranged from 86% to 98%.

“Several factors may contribute to the disparity in clinical trial participation, and solutions must be explored and developed. CHIMES is a first step in this direction where the study itself is designed to address disparity in MS clinical trial participation,” said Dr. Obeidat.

Dr. Obeidat also pointed to the need to consider other forms of diversity in clinical trials, such as older patients and those with advanced disability. “Investigators, coordinators, and other staff should all strive to be as inclusive as possible in clinical trials,” he said.

Dr. Williams has received consulting fees from Alexion, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Genentech Inc., Janssen, Novartis, Sanofi, and TG Therapeutics, and serves on speakers bureaus for Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, EMD Serono, Janssen, Genentech, and TG Therapeutics. Dr. Ahmed Z. Obeidat has financial relationships with Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Banner Life Sciences, BD Biosciences, Biogen, Biologix Solutions, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, EMD Serono, Genentech, GW Pharmaceuticals, Horizon Therapeutics, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Sandoz, Sanofi Genzyme, TG Therapeutics, and Viela Bio.

British Columbia (BC) could eliminate cervical cancer within the next 20 years if the province shifts from cytology to human papillomavirus (HPV)–based screening before the end of the decade, data suggested. To achieve this goal, the province will also need to reach historically underscreened, equity-seeking populations (ie, Black, indigenous, immigrant, LGBTQ, and disabled patients, and those with sexual trauma) through mailed self-screening HPV tests.

The adoption of both these strategies is essential, according to a modeling study that was published on June 3 in CMAJ, especially because the true impact of HPV vaccination has yet to be fully realized.

“In BC, we have a school-based program to increase vaccine coverage in boys and girls starting in grade 6,” study author Reka Pataky, PhD, a senior research health economist at the Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control and BC Cancer in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. Dr. Pataky noted that this immunization program was launched in 2008 and that some of the initial cohorts haven›t yet reached the average age of diagnosis, which is between 30 and 59 years.

Three’s a Charm

The investigators undertook a modeling study to determine when and how BC might achieve the elimination of cervical cancer following a transition to HPV-based screening. Elimination was defined as an annual age-standardized incidence rate of < 4.0 per 100,000 women.

Modeling scenarios were developed using the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer’s priority targets, which include increasing HPV vaccination through school-based coverage from 70% to 90%, increasing the probability of ever receiving a screening test from 90% to 95%, increasing the rate of on-time screening from 70% to 90%, and improving follow-up to 95% for colposcopy (currently 88%) and HPV testing (currently 80%). Modeling simulated HPV transmission and the natural history of cervical cancer in the Canadian population and relied upon two reference scenarios: One using BC’s cytology-based screening at the time of analysis, and the other an HPV base-case scenario.

The researchers found that with the status quo (ie, cytology-based screening and no change to vaccination or screening participation rates), BC would not eliminate cervical cancer until 2045. Implementation of HPV-based screening at the current 70% participation rate would achieve elimination in 2034 and prevent 942 cases compared with cytology screening. Increasing the proportion of patients who were ever screened or increasing vaccination coverage would result in cervical cancer elimination by 2033. The time line would be shortened even further (to 2031) through a combination of three strategies (ie, improving recruitment, on-time screening, and follow-up compliance).

Low Incidence, Strained System

The incidence of cervical cancer in Canada is relatively low, accounting for 1.3% of all new female cancers and 1.1% of all female cancer deaths.

“The reason that we have such low rates is because we have organized screening programs,” explained Rachel Kupets, MD, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Hospital, Toronto. She was not involved in the study.

“We’re starting to see what happens when the system gets strained with lower participation rates. I am starting to see a lot more women with invasive cervical cancer. They’re younger, and their cancers are less curable and less treatable,” she said.

Difficulties with access, interest, and education have contributed to low cervical screening rates among equity-seeking populations, according to Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets.

“Self-screening is another tool that can incrementally benefit those folks who wouldn’t otherwise undergo screening or don’t want an invasive test,” said Dr. Kupets. It can also play an increasing role, while current access to primary care services in Canada is at an all-time low. Community outreach through centers, mobile coaches, and nursing stations might help ensure participation by at-risk populations. These measures also could boost follow-up for and education about positive results, said Dr. Kupets.

In a related editorial, Shannon Charlebois, MD, medical editor of CMAJ, and Sarah Kean, MD, assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, emphasized the need for mailed HPV self-screening kits to be paid for and integrated into provincial cervical cancer screening programs across Canada to support earlier cervical cancer detection and lower invasive cancer rates.

Dr. Pataky concurred. “There have been discussions about making the big transition from traditional cytology to implementing HPV self-screening,” she said. “We have really effective tools for preventing cervical cancer, and it’s important to not lose sight of that goal.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

British Columbia (BC) could eliminate cervical cancer within the next 20 years if the province shifts from cytology to human papillomavirus (HPV)–based screening before the end of the decade, data suggested. To achieve this goal, the province will also need to reach historically underscreened, equity-seeking populations (ie, Black, indigenous, immigrant, LGBTQ, and disabled patients, and those with sexual trauma) through mailed self-screening HPV tests.

The adoption of both these strategies is essential, according to a modeling study that was published on June 3 in CMAJ, especially because the true impact of HPV vaccination has yet to be fully realized.

“In BC, we have a school-based program to increase vaccine coverage in boys and girls starting in grade 6,” study author Reka Pataky, PhD, a senior research health economist at the Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control and BC Cancer in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. Dr. Pataky noted that this immunization program was launched in 2008 and that some of the initial cohorts haven›t yet reached the average age of diagnosis, which is between 30 and 59 years.

Three’s a Charm

The investigators undertook a modeling study to determine when and how BC might achieve the elimination of cervical cancer following a transition to HPV-based screening. Elimination was defined as an annual age-standardized incidence rate of < 4.0 per 100,000 women.

Modeling scenarios were developed using the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer’s priority targets, which include increasing HPV vaccination through school-based coverage from 70% to 90%, increasing the probability of ever receiving a screening test from 90% to 95%, increasing the rate of on-time screening from 70% to 90%, and improving follow-up to 95% for colposcopy (currently 88%) and HPV testing (currently 80%). Modeling simulated HPV transmission and the natural history of cervical cancer in the Canadian population and relied upon two reference scenarios: One using BC’s cytology-based screening at the time of analysis, and the other an HPV base-case scenario.

The researchers found that with the status quo (ie, cytology-based screening and no change to vaccination or screening participation rates), BC would not eliminate cervical cancer until 2045. Implementation of HPV-based screening at the current 70% participation rate would achieve elimination in 2034 and prevent 942 cases compared with cytology screening. Increasing the proportion of patients who were ever screened or increasing vaccination coverage would result in cervical cancer elimination by 2033. The time line would be shortened even further (to 2031) through a combination of three strategies (ie, improving recruitment, on-time screening, and follow-up compliance).

Low Incidence, Strained System

The incidence of cervical cancer in Canada is relatively low, accounting for 1.3% of all new female cancers and 1.1% of all female cancer deaths.

“The reason that we have such low rates is because we have organized screening programs,” explained Rachel Kupets, MD, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Hospital, Toronto. She was not involved in the study.

“We’re starting to see what happens when the system gets strained with lower participation rates. I am starting to see a lot more women with invasive cervical cancer. They’re younger, and their cancers are less curable and less treatable,” she said.

Difficulties with access, interest, and education have contributed to low cervical screening rates among equity-seeking populations, according to Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets.

“Self-screening is another tool that can incrementally benefit those folks who wouldn’t otherwise undergo screening or don’t want an invasive test,” said Dr. Kupets. It can also play an increasing role, while current access to primary care services in Canada is at an all-time low. Community outreach through centers, mobile coaches, and nursing stations might help ensure participation by at-risk populations. These measures also could boost follow-up for and education about positive results, said Dr. Kupets.

In a related editorial, Shannon Charlebois, MD, medical editor of CMAJ, and Sarah Kean, MD, assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, emphasized the need for mailed HPV self-screening kits to be paid for and integrated into provincial cervical cancer screening programs across Canada to support earlier cervical cancer detection and lower invasive cancer rates.

Dr. Pataky concurred. “There have been discussions about making the big transition from traditional cytology to implementing HPV self-screening,” she said. “We have really effective tools for preventing cervical cancer, and it’s important to not lose sight of that goal.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

British Columbia (BC) could eliminate cervical cancer within the next 20 years if the province shifts from cytology to human papillomavirus (HPV)–based screening before the end of the decade, data suggested. To achieve this goal, the province will also need to reach historically underscreened, equity-seeking populations (ie, Black, indigenous, immigrant, LGBTQ, and disabled patients, and those with sexual trauma) through mailed self-screening HPV tests.

The adoption of both these strategies is essential, according to a modeling study that was published on June 3 in CMAJ, especially because the true impact of HPV vaccination has yet to be fully realized.

“In BC, we have a school-based program to increase vaccine coverage in boys and girls starting in grade 6,” study author Reka Pataky, PhD, a senior research health economist at the Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control and BC Cancer in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, told this news organization. Dr. Pataky noted that this immunization program was launched in 2008 and that some of the initial cohorts haven›t yet reached the average age of diagnosis, which is between 30 and 59 years.

Three’s a Charm

The investigators undertook a modeling study to determine when and how BC might achieve the elimination of cervical cancer following a transition to HPV-based screening. Elimination was defined as an annual age-standardized incidence rate of < 4.0 per 100,000 women.

Modeling scenarios were developed using the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer’s priority targets, which include increasing HPV vaccination through school-based coverage from 70% to 90%, increasing the probability of ever receiving a screening test from 90% to 95%, increasing the rate of on-time screening from 70% to 90%, and improving follow-up to 95% for colposcopy (currently 88%) and HPV testing (currently 80%). Modeling simulated HPV transmission and the natural history of cervical cancer in the Canadian population and relied upon two reference scenarios: One using BC’s cytology-based screening at the time of analysis, and the other an HPV base-case scenario.

The researchers found that with the status quo (ie, cytology-based screening and no change to vaccination or screening participation rates), BC would not eliminate cervical cancer until 2045. Implementation of HPV-based screening at the current 70% participation rate would achieve elimination in 2034 and prevent 942 cases compared with cytology screening. Increasing the proportion of patients who were ever screened or increasing vaccination coverage would result in cervical cancer elimination by 2033. The time line would be shortened even further (to 2031) through a combination of three strategies (ie, improving recruitment, on-time screening, and follow-up compliance).

Low Incidence, Strained System

The incidence of cervical cancer in Canada is relatively low, accounting for 1.3% of all new female cancers and 1.1% of all female cancer deaths.

“The reason that we have such low rates is because we have organized screening programs,” explained Rachel Kupets, MD, associate professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Toronto and Sunnybrook Hospital, Toronto. She was not involved in the study.

“We’re starting to see what happens when the system gets strained with lower participation rates. I am starting to see a lot more women with invasive cervical cancer. They’re younger, and their cancers are less curable and less treatable,” she said.

Difficulties with access, interest, and education have contributed to low cervical screening rates among equity-seeking populations, according to Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets.

“Self-screening is another tool that can incrementally benefit those folks who wouldn’t otherwise undergo screening or don’t want an invasive test,” said Dr. Kupets. It can also play an increasing role, while current access to primary care services in Canada is at an all-time low. Community outreach through centers, mobile coaches, and nursing stations might help ensure participation by at-risk populations. These measures also could boost follow-up for and education about positive results, said Dr. Kupets.

In a related editorial, Shannon Charlebois, MD, medical editor of CMAJ, and Sarah Kean, MD, assistant professor of gynecologic oncology at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, emphasized the need for mailed HPV self-screening kits to be paid for and integrated into provincial cervical cancer screening programs across Canada to support earlier cervical cancer detection and lower invasive cancer rates.

Dr. Pataky concurred. “There have been discussions about making the big transition from traditional cytology to implementing HPV self-screening,” she said. “We have really effective tools for preventing cervical cancer, and it’s important to not lose sight of that goal.”

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pataky and Dr. Kupets reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.