Hair loss is a primary reason why women with skin of color seek dermatologic care.^1-3 In addition to physical disfigurement, patients with hair loss are more likely to report feelings of depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem compared to the general population.⁴ There is a critical gap in advocacy efforts and educational information intended for women with skin of color. The American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) has 6 main public health programs (https://www.aad.org/public/public-health) and 8 stated advocacy priorities (https://www.aad.org/member/advocacy/priorities) but none of them focus on outreach to minority communities.

Historically, hair in patients with skin of color also has been a systemic tangible target for race-based discrimination. The Create a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair (CROWN) Act was passed to protect against discrimination based on race-based hairstyles in schools and workplaces.⁵ Health care providers play an important role in advocating for their patients, but studies have shown that barriers to effective advocacy include a lack of knowledge, resources, or time.^6-8 Virtual advocacy events improve participants’ understanding and interest in community engagement and advocacy.^6,7 With the mission to engage, educate, and empower women with skin of color and the dermatologists who treat them, the Virginia Dermatology Society hosted the virtual CROWNing Event on Hair Loss in Women of Color in July 2021. We believe that this event, as well as this column, can serve as a template to improve advocacy and educational efforts for additional topics and diseases that affect marginalized or underserved populations. Survey data were collected and analyzed to establish a baseline of awareness and understanding of hair loss in women with skin of color and to evaluate the impact of a virtual event on participants’ empowerment and familiarity with resources for this population.

Methods

The Virginia Dermatology Society organized a virtual event focused on hair loss and practical political advocacy for women with skin of color. As members of the Virginia Dermatology Society and as part of the planning and execution of this event, the authors engaged relevant stakeholder organizations and collaborated with faculty at a local historically Black university to create a targeted, culturally sensitive communication strategy known as the Framework for Advocacy and Community Engagement (FACE) model (Figure). The agenda included presentations by 2 patients of color living with a hair loss disorder, a dermatologist with experience in advocacy, a Virginia state legislator, and a dermatologic hair loss expert, followed by a final question-and-answer session.

We created pre- and postevent Likert scale surveys assessing participant attitudes, knowledge, and awareness surrounding hair loss that were distributed electronically to all 399 registrants before and after the event, respectively. The responses were analyzed using a Mann-Whitney U test.

Results

All 399 registrants completed the pre-event survey; 115 (28.8%) and 189 (47.4%) identified as patients and health care professionals, respectively (Table 1). Overall, 137 (34.3%) respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement, “I am familiar with the various and specific resources for hair loss in women of color.” Treatments and resources emerged as prevalent themes when respondents were asked about information or support they wished they had on hair loss. Respondents reported self-esteem/self-worth, treatment efficacy, and lack of knowledge/understanding as the most challenging aspects for women with skin of color experiencing hair loss.

Based on preliminary pre-event survey data, we created a resource toolkit (https://bit.ly/vadermhairlosstoolkit) for distribution to both patients and physicians. The toolkit included articles about evaluating, diagnosing, and treating different types of hair loss that would be beneficial for dermatologists, as well as informational articles, online resources, and videos that would be helpful to patients.

Of the 399 registrants, 165 (41.4%) attended the live virtual event. The postevent survey was completed by 70 (42.4%) participants and showed that familiarity with resources and treatments (z=−3.34, P=.0008) and feelings of empowerment (z=−3.55, P=.0004) significantly increased from before the event (Table 2). Participants indicated that the event exceeded (84.3%) or met (15.7%) their expectations.

Hair Loss Is Prevalent in Skin of Color Patients—Alopecia is the fourth most common reason women with skin of color seek care from a dermatologist, accounting for 8.3% of all visits in a study of 1412 patient visits; however, it was not among the leading 10 diagnoses made during visits for White patients.³ Traction alopecia, discoid lupus erythematosus, and central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia occur more commonly in Black women,⁹ many of whom do not feel their dermatologists understand hair in this population.^10,11 Lack of skin of color education in medical school and dermatology residency programs has been reported and must be improved to eliminate the knowledge gaps, acquire cultural competence, and improve all aspects of care for patients with skin of color.^11-14 Our survey results similarly demonstrated that only 66% of board-certified dermatologists reported being familiar with the various and specific resources and treatments for hair loss in women of color. Improved understanding of hair in patients of color is a first step in diagnosing and treating hair loss.¹⁵ Expertise of dermatologists in skin of color improves the dermatology experience of patients of color.¹¹

Hair loss is more than a cosmetic issue, and it is essential that it is regarded as such. Patients with hair loss have an increased prevalence of depression and anxiety compared to the general population and report lower self-esteem, heightened self-consciousness, and loss of confidence.^4,9 Historically, the lives of patients of color have been drastically affected by society’s perceptions of their skin color and hairstyle.¹⁶

Hair-Based Discrimination in the Workplace—To compound the problem, hair also is a common target of race-based discrimination behind the illusion of “professionalism.” Hair-based discrimination keeps people of color out of professional workplaces; for instance, women of color are more likely to be sent home due to hair appearance than White women.⁵ The CROWN Act, created in 2019, extends statutory protection to hair texture and protective hairstyles such as braids, locs, twists, and knots in the workplace and public schools to protect against discrimination due to race-based hairstyles. The CROWN Act provides an opportunity for dermatologists to support legislation that protects patients of color and the fundamental human right to nondiscrimination. As societal pressure for damaging hair practices such as hot combing or chemical relaxants decreases, patient outcomes will improve.⁵

How to Support the CROWN Act—There are various meaningful ways for dermatologists to support the CROWN act, including but not limited to signing petitions, sending letters of support to elected representatives, joining the CROWN Coalition, raising awareness and educating the public through social media, vocalizing against hair discrimination in our own workplaces and communities, and asking patients about their experiences with hair discrimination.5 In addition to advocacy, other antiracist actions suggested to improve health equity include creating curricula on racial inequity and increasing diversity in dermatology.¹⁶

There are many advocacy and public health campaigns promoted on the AAD website; however, despite the AAD’s formation of the Access to Dermatologic Care Task Force (ATDCTF) with the goal to raise awareness among dermatologists of health disparities affecting marginalized and underserved populations and to develop policies that increase access to care for these groups, there are still critical gaps in advocacy and information.¹³ This gap in both advocacy and understanding of hair loss conditions in women of color is one reason the CROWNing Event in July 2021 was held, and we believe this event along with this column can serve as a template for addressing additional topics and diseases that affect marginalized or underserved populations.

Dermatologists can play a vital role in advocating for skin and hair needs in all patient populations from the personal or clinical encounter level to population-level policy legislation.^5,8 As experts in skin and hair, dermatologists are best prepared to assume leadership in addressing racial health inequities, educating the public, and improving awareness.^5,16 Dermatologists must be able to diagnose and manage skin conditions in people of color.¹² However, health advocacy should extend beyond changes to health behavior or health interventions and instead address the root causes of systemic issues that drive disparate health outcomes.⁶ Every dermatologist has a contribution to make; it is time for us to acknowledge that patients’ ailments neither begin nor end at the clinic door.^8,16 As dermatologists, we must speak out against the racial inequities and discriminatory policies affecting the lives of patients of color.¹⁶

Although the CROWNing event should be considered successful, reflection in hindsight has allowed us to find ways to improve the impact of future events, including incorporating more lay members of the respective community in the planning process, allocating more time during the event programming for questions, and streamlining the distribution of pre-event and postevent surveys to better gauge knowledge retention among participants and gain crucial feedback for future event planning.

How to Use the FACE Model—We believe that the FACE model (Figure) can help providers engage lay members of the community with additional topics and diseases that affect marginalized and underserved populations. We recommend that future organizers engage stakeholders early during the design, planning, and implementation phases to ensure that the community’s most pressing needs are addressed. Dermatologists possess the knowledge and influence to serve as powerful advocates and champions for health equity. As physicians on the front lines of dermatologic health, we are uniquely positioned to engage and partner with patients through educational and advocacy events such as ours. Similarly, informed and empowered patients can advocate for policies and be proponents for greater research funding.⁵ We call on the AAD and other dermatologic organizations to expand community outreach and advocacy efforts to include underserved and underrepresented populations.

Acknowledgments—The authors would like to thank and acknowledge the faculty at Hampton University (Hampton, Virginia)—specifically Ms. B. DáVida Plummer, MA—for assistance with communication strategies, including organizing the radio and television announcements and proofreading the public service announcements. We also would like to thank other CROWNing Event Planning Committee members, including Natalia Mendoza, MD (Newport News, Virginia); Farhaad Riyaz, MD (Gainesville, Virginia); Deborah Elder, MD (Charlottesville, Virginia); and David Rowe, MD (Charlottesville, Virginia), as well as Sandra Ring, MS, CCLS, CNP (Chicago, Illinois), from the AAD and the various speakers at the event, including the 2 patients; Victoria Barbosa, MD, MPH, MBA (Chicago, Illinois); Avery LaChance, MD, MPH (Boston, Massachusetts); and Senator Lionell Spruill Sr (Chesapeake, Virginia). We acknowledge Marieke K. Jones, PhD, at the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library at the University of Virginia (Charlottesville, Virginia), for her statistical expertise.

Hair loss is a primary reason why women with skin of color seek dermatologic care.^1-3 In addition to physical disfigurement, patients with hair loss are more likely to report feelings of depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem compared to the general population.⁴ There is a critical gap in advocacy efforts and educational information intended for women with skin of color. The American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) has 6 main public health programs (https://www.aad.org/public/public-health) and 8 stated advocacy priorities (https://www.aad.org/member/advocacy/priorities) but none of them focus on outreach to minority communities.

Historically, hair in patients with skin of color also has been a systemic tangible target for race-based discrimination. The Create a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair (CROWN) Act was passed to protect against discrimination based on race-based hairstyles in schools and workplaces.⁵ Health care providers play an important role in advocating for their patients, but studies have shown that barriers to effective advocacy include a lack of knowledge, resources, or time.^6-8 Virtual advocacy events improve participants’ understanding and interest in community engagement and advocacy.^6,7 With the mission to engage, educate, and empower women with skin of color and the dermatologists who treat them, the Virginia Dermatology Society hosted the virtual CROWNing Event on Hair Loss in Women of Color in July 2021. We believe that this event, as well as this column, can serve as a template to improve advocacy and educational efforts for additional topics and diseases that affect marginalized or underserved populations. Survey data were collected and analyzed to establish a baseline of awareness and understanding of hair loss in women with skin of color and to evaluate the impact of a virtual event on participants’ empowerment and familiarity with resources for this population.

Methods

The Virginia Dermatology Society organized a virtual event focused on hair loss and practical political advocacy for women with skin of color. As members of the Virginia Dermatology Society and as part of the planning and execution of this event, the authors engaged relevant stakeholder organizations and collaborated with faculty at a local historically Black university to create a targeted, culturally sensitive communication strategy known as the Framework for Advocacy and Community Engagement (FACE) model (Figure). The agenda included presentations by 2 patients of color living with a hair loss disorder, a dermatologist with experience in advocacy, a Virginia state legislator, and a dermatologic hair loss expert, followed by a final question-and-answer session.

We created pre- and postevent Likert scale surveys assessing participant attitudes, knowledge, and awareness surrounding hair loss that were distributed electronically to all 399 registrants before and after the event, respectively. The responses were analyzed using a Mann-Whitney U test.

Results

All 399 registrants completed the pre-event survey; 115 (28.8%) and 189 (47.4%) identified as patients and health care professionals, respectively (Table 1). Overall, 137 (34.3%) respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement, “I am familiar with the various and specific resources for hair loss in women of color.” Treatments and resources emerged as prevalent themes when respondents were asked about information or support they wished they had on hair loss. Respondents reported self-esteem/self-worth, treatment efficacy, and lack of knowledge/understanding as the most challenging aspects for women with skin of color experiencing hair loss.

Based on preliminary pre-event survey data, we created a resource toolkit (https://bit.ly/vadermhairlosstoolkit) for distribution to both patients and physicians. The toolkit included articles about evaluating, diagnosing, and treating different types of hair loss that would be beneficial for dermatologists, as well as informational articles, online resources, and videos that would be helpful to patients.

Of the 399 registrants, 165 (41.4%) attended the live virtual event. The postevent survey was completed by 70 (42.4%) participants and showed that familiarity with resources and treatments (z=−3.34, P=.0008) and feelings of empowerment (z=−3.55, P=.0004) significantly increased from before the event (Table 2). Participants indicated that the event exceeded (84.3%) or met (15.7%) their expectations.

Hair Loss Is Prevalent in Skin of Color Patients—Alopecia is the fourth most common reason women with skin of color seek care from a dermatologist, accounting for 8.3% of all visits in a study of 1412 patient visits; however, it was not among the leading 10 diagnoses made during visits for White patients.³ Traction alopecia, discoid lupus erythematosus, and central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia occur more commonly in Black women,⁹ many of whom do not feel their dermatologists understand hair in this population.^10,11 Lack of skin of color education in medical school and dermatology residency programs has been reported and must be improved to eliminate the knowledge gaps, acquire cultural competence, and improve all aspects of care for patients with skin of color.^11-14 Our survey results similarly demonstrated that only 66% of board-certified dermatologists reported being familiar with the various and specific resources and treatments for hair loss in women of color. Improved understanding of hair in patients of color is a first step in diagnosing and treating hair loss.¹⁵ Expertise of dermatologists in skin of color improves the dermatology experience of patients of color.¹¹

Hair loss is more than a cosmetic issue, and it is essential that it is regarded as such. Patients with hair loss have an increased prevalence of depression and anxiety compared to the general population and report lower self-esteem, heightened self-consciousness, and loss of confidence.^4,9 Historically, the lives of patients of color have been drastically affected by society’s perceptions of their skin color and hairstyle.¹⁶

Hair-Based Discrimination in the Workplace—To compound the problem, hair also is a common target of race-based discrimination behind the illusion of “professionalism.” Hair-based discrimination keeps people of color out of professional workplaces; for instance, women of color are more likely to be sent home due to hair appearance than White women.⁵ The CROWN Act, created in 2019, extends statutory protection to hair texture and protective hairstyles such as braids, locs, twists, and knots in the workplace and public schools to protect against discrimination due to race-based hairstyles. The CROWN Act provides an opportunity for dermatologists to support legislation that protects patients of color and the fundamental human right to nondiscrimination. As societal pressure for damaging hair practices such as hot combing or chemical relaxants decreases, patient outcomes will improve.⁵

How to Support the CROWN Act—There are various meaningful ways for dermatologists to support the CROWN act, including but not limited to signing petitions, sending letters of support to elected representatives, joining the CROWN Coalition, raising awareness and educating the public through social media, vocalizing against hair discrimination in our own workplaces and communities, and asking patients about their experiences with hair discrimination.5 In addition to advocacy, other antiracist actions suggested to improve health equity include creating curricula on racial inequity and increasing diversity in dermatology.¹⁶

There are many advocacy and public health campaigns promoted on the AAD website; however, despite the AAD’s formation of the Access to Dermatologic Care Task Force (ATDCTF) with the goal to raise awareness among dermatologists of health disparities affecting marginalized and underserved populations and to develop policies that increase access to care for these groups, there are still critical gaps in advocacy and information.¹³ This gap in both advocacy and understanding of hair loss conditions in women of color is one reason the CROWNing Event in July 2021 was held, and we believe this event along with this column can serve as a template for addressing additional topics and diseases that affect marginalized or underserved populations.

Dermatologists can play a vital role in advocating for skin and hair needs in all patient populations from the personal or clinical encounter level to population-level policy legislation.^5,8 As experts in skin and hair, dermatologists are best prepared to assume leadership in addressing racial health inequities, educating the public, and improving awareness.^5,16 Dermatologists must be able to diagnose and manage skin conditions in people of color.¹² However, health advocacy should extend beyond changes to health behavior or health interventions and instead address the root causes of systemic issues that drive disparate health outcomes.⁶ Every dermatologist has a contribution to make; it is time for us to acknowledge that patients’ ailments neither begin nor end at the clinic door.^8,16 As dermatologists, we must speak out against the racial inequities and discriminatory policies affecting the lives of patients of color.¹⁶

Although the CROWNing event should be considered successful, reflection in hindsight has allowed us to find ways to improve the impact of future events, including incorporating more lay members of the respective community in the planning process, allocating more time during the event programming for questions, and streamlining the distribution of pre-event and postevent surveys to better gauge knowledge retention among participants and gain crucial feedback for future event planning.

How to Use the FACE Model—We believe that the FACE model (Figure) can help providers engage lay members of the community with additional topics and diseases that affect marginalized and underserved populations. We recommend that future organizers engage stakeholders early during the design, planning, and implementation phases to ensure that the community’s most pressing needs are addressed. Dermatologists possess the knowledge and influence to serve as powerful advocates and champions for health equity. As physicians on the front lines of dermatologic health, we are uniquely positioned to engage and partner with patients through educational and advocacy events such as ours. Similarly, informed and empowered patients can advocate for policies and be proponents for greater research funding.⁵ We call on the AAD and other dermatologic organizations to expand community outreach and advocacy efforts to include underserved and underrepresented populations.

Acknowledgments—The authors would like to thank and acknowledge the faculty at Hampton University (Hampton, Virginia)—specifically Ms. B. DáVida Plummer, MA—for assistance with communication strategies, including organizing the radio and television announcements and proofreading the public service announcements. We also would like to thank other CROWNing Event Planning Committee members, including Natalia Mendoza, MD (Newport News, Virginia); Farhaad Riyaz, MD (Gainesville, Virginia); Deborah Elder, MD (Charlottesville, Virginia); and David Rowe, MD (Charlottesville, Virginia), as well as Sandra Ring, MS, CCLS, CNP (Chicago, Illinois), from the AAD and the various speakers at the event, including the 2 patients; Victoria Barbosa, MD, MPH, MBA (Chicago, Illinois); Avery LaChance, MD, MPH (Boston, Massachusetts); and Senator Lionell Spruill Sr (Chesapeake, Virginia). We acknowledge Marieke K. Jones, PhD, at the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library at the University of Virginia (Charlottesville, Virginia), for her statistical expertise.

Hair loss is a primary reason why women with skin of color seek dermatologic care.^1-3 In addition to physical disfigurement, patients with hair loss are more likely to report feelings of depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem compared to the general population.⁴ There is a critical gap in advocacy efforts and educational information intended for women with skin of color. The American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) has 6 main public health programs (https://www.aad.org/public/public-health) and 8 stated advocacy priorities (https://www.aad.org/member/advocacy/priorities) but none of them focus on outreach to minority communities.

Historically, hair in patients with skin of color also has been a systemic tangible target for race-based discrimination. The Create a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair (CROWN) Act was passed to protect against discrimination based on race-based hairstyles in schools and workplaces.⁵ Health care providers play an important role in advocating for their patients, but studies have shown that barriers to effective advocacy include a lack of knowledge, resources, or time.^6-8 Virtual advocacy events improve participants’ understanding and interest in community engagement and advocacy.^6,7 With the mission to engage, educate, and empower women with skin of color and the dermatologists who treat them, the Virginia Dermatology Society hosted the virtual CROWNing Event on Hair Loss in Women of Color in July 2021. We believe that this event, as well as this column, can serve as a template to improve advocacy and educational efforts for additional topics and diseases that affect marginalized or underserved populations. Survey data were collected and analyzed to establish a baseline of awareness and understanding of hair loss in women with skin of color and to evaluate the impact of a virtual event on participants’ empowerment and familiarity with resources for this population.

Methods

The Virginia Dermatology Society organized a virtual event focused on hair loss and practical political advocacy for women with skin of color. As members of the Virginia Dermatology Society and as part of the planning and execution of this event, the authors engaged relevant stakeholder organizations and collaborated with faculty at a local historically Black university to create a targeted, culturally sensitive communication strategy known as the Framework for Advocacy and Community Engagement (FACE) model (Figure). The agenda included presentations by 2 patients of color living with a hair loss disorder, a dermatologist with experience in advocacy, a Virginia state legislator, and a dermatologic hair loss expert, followed by a final question-and-answer session.

We created pre- and postevent Likert scale surveys assessing participant attitudes, knowledge, and awareness surrounding hair loss that were distributed electronically to all 399 registrants before and after the event, respectively. The responses were analyzed using a Mann-Whitney U test.

Results

All 399 registrants completed the pre-event survey; 115 (28.8%) and 189 (47.4%) identified as patients and health care professionals, respectively (Table 1). Overall, 137 (34.3%) respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement, “I am familiar with the various and specific resources for hair loss in women of color.” Treatments and resources emerged as prevalent themes when respondents were asked about information or support they wished they had on hair loss. Respondents reported self-esteem/self-worth, treatment efficacy, and lack of knowledge/understanding as the most challenging aspects for women with skin of color experiencing hair loss.

Based on preliminary pre-event survey data, we created a resource toolkit (https://bit.ly/vadermhairlosstoolkit) for distribution to both patients and physicians. The toolkit included articles about evaluating, diagnosing, and treating different types of hair loss that would be beneficial for dermatologists, as well as informational articles, online resources, and videos that would be helpful to patients.

Of the 399 registrants, 165 (41.4%) attended the live virtual event. The postevent survey was completed by 70 (42.4%) participants and showed that familiarity with resources and treatments (z=−3.34, P=.0008) and feelings of empowerment (z=−3.55, P=.0004) significantly increased from before the event (Table 2). Participants indicated that the event exceeded (84.3%) or met (15.7%) their expectations.

Hair Loss Is Prevalent in Skin of Color Patients—Alopecia is the fourth most common reason women with skin of color seek care from a dermatologist, accounting for 8.3% of all visits in a study of 1412 patient visits; however, it was not among the leading 10 diagnoses made during visits for White patients.³ Traction alopecia, discoid lupus erythematosus, and central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia occur more commonly in Black women,⁹ many of whom do not feel their dermatologists understand hair in this population.^10,11 Lack of skin of color education in medical school and dermatology residency programs has been reported and must be improved to eliminate the knowledge gaps, acquire cultural competence, and improve all aspects of care for patients with skin of color.^11-14 Our survey results similarly demonstrated that only 66% of board-certified dermatologists reported being familiar with the various and specific resources and treatments for hair loss in women of color. Improved understanding of hair in patients of color is a first step in diagnosing and treating hair loss.¹⁵ Expertise of dermatologists in skin of color improves the dermatology experience of patients of color.¹¹

Hair loss is more than a cosmetic issue, and it is essential that it is regarded as such. Patients with hair loss have an increased prevalence of depression and anxiety compared to the general population and report lower self-esteem, heightened self-consciousness, and loss of confidence.^4,9 Historically, the lives of patients of color have been drastically affected by society’s perceptions of their skin color and hairstyle.¹⁶

Hair-Based Discrimination in the Workplace—To compound the problem, hair also is a common target of race-based discrimination behind the illusion of “professionalism.” Hair-based discrimination keeps people of color out of professional workplaces; for instance, women of color are more likely to be sent home due to hair appearance than White women.⁵ The CROWN Act, created in 2019, extends statutory protection to hair texture and protective hairstyles such as braids, locs, twists, and knots in the workplace and public schools to protect against discrimination due to race-based hairstyles. The CROWN Act provides an opportunity for dermatologists to support legislation that protects patients of color and the fundamental human right to nondiscrimination. As societal pressure for damaging hair practices such as hot combing or chemical relaxants decreases, patient outcomes will improve.⁵

How to Support the CROWN Act—There are various meaningful ways for dermatologists to support the CROWN act, including but not limited to signing petitions, sending letters of support to elected representatives, joining the CROWN Coalition, raising awareness and educating the public through social media, vocalizing against hair discrimination in our own workplaces and communities, and asking patients about their experiences with hair discrimination.5 In addition to advocacy, other antiracist actions suggested to improve health equity include creating curricula on racial inequity and increasing diversity in dermatology.¹⁶

There are many advocacy and public health campaigns promoted on the AAD website; however, despite the AAD’s formation of the Access to Dermatologic Care Task Force (ATDCTF) with the goal to raise awareness among dermatologists of health disparities affecting marginalized and underserved populations and to develop policies that increase access to care for these groups, there are still critical gaps in advocacy and information.¹³ This gap in both advocacy and understanding of hair loss conditions in women of color is one reason the CROWNing Event in July 2021 was held, and we believe this event along with this column can serve as a template for addressing additional topics and diseases that affect marginalized or underserved populations.

Dermatologists can play a vital role in advocating for skin and hair needs in all patient populations from the personal or clinical encounter level to population-level policy legislation.^5,8 As experts in skin and hair, dermatologists are best prepared to assume leadership in addressing racial health inequities, educating the public, and improving awareness.^5,16 Dermatologists must be able to diagnose and manage skin conditions in people of color.¹² However, health advocacy should extend beyond changes to health behavior or health interventions and instead address the root causes of systemic issues that drive disparate health outcomes.⁶ Every dermatologist has a contribution to make; it is time for us to acknowledge that patients’ ailments neither begin nor end at the clinic door.^8,16 As dermatologists, we must speak out against the racial inequities and discriminatory policies affecting the lives of patients of color.¹⁶

Although the CROWNing event should be considered successful, reflection in hindsight has allowed us to find ways to improve the impact of future events, including incorporating more lay members of the respective community in the planning process, allocating more time during the event programming for questions, and streamlining the distribution of pre-event and postevent surveys to better gauge knowledge retention among participants and gain crucial feedback for future event planning.

How to Use the FACE Model—We believe that the FACE model (Figure) can help providers engage lay members of the community with additional topics and diseases that affect marginalized and underserved populations. We recommend that future organizers engage stakeholders early during the design, planning, and implementation phases to ensure that the community’s most pressing needs are addressed. Dermatologists possess the knowledge and influence to serve as powerful advocates and champions for health equity. As physicians on the front lines of dermatologic health, we are uniquely positioned to engage and partner with patients through educational and advocacy events such as ours. Similarly, informed and empowered patients can advocate for policies and be proponents for greater research funding.⁵ We call on the AAD and other dermatologic organizations to expand community outreach and advocacy efforts to include underserved and underrepresented populations.

Acknowledgments—The authors would like to thank and acknowledge the faculty at Hampton University (Hampton, Virginia)—specifically Ms. B. DáVida Plummer, MA—for assistance with communication strategies, including organizing the radio and television announcements and proofreading the public service announcements. We also would like to thank other CROWNing Event Planning Committee members, including Natalia Mendoza, MD (Newport News, Virginia); Farhaad Riyaz, MD (Gainesville, Virginia); Deborah Elder, MD (Charlottesville, Virginia); and David Rowe, MD (Charlottesville, Virginia), as well as Sandra Ring, MS, CCLS, CNP (Chicago, Illinois), from the AAD and the various speakers at the event, including the 2 patients; Victoria Barbosa, MD, MPH, MBA (Chicago, Illinois); Avery LaChance, MD, MPH (Boston, Massachusetts); and Senator Lionell Spruill Sr (Chesapeake, Virginia). We acknowledge Marieke K. Jones, PhD, at the Claude Moore Health Sciences Library at the University of Virginia (Charlottesville, Virginia), for her statistical expertise.

Petrolatum recently has received substantial social media attention. In the last year, the number of TikTok and Instagram videos mentioning petrolatum increased by 46% and 93%, respectively. According to Unilever, the company that manufactures Vaseline, mentions of the product have gone up by 327% on social media compared to last year largely due to a trend known as “slugging,” or the practice of slathering on petrolatum overnight to improve skin hydration.¹ However, petrolatum has a variety of other uses. Given its increase in popularity, we review the many uses of petrolatum within dermatology.

The main reason for petrolatum’s presence on social media is its effectiveness as a moisturizer, which is due to its occlusive property. Its oil-based nature allows it to seal water in the skin by creating a hydrophobic barrier that decreases transepidermal water loss (TEWL). Among available oil-based moisturizers, petrolatum is the most effective in reducing TEWL by 98%, while others only provide reductions of 20% to 30%,² which makes it ideal for soothing itch and irritation in several skin conditions, including dry skin, cheilitis, chafing, and diaper rash. Petrolatum is particularly helpful in sensitive areas where the skin is thinner, such as the eyelids or lips, as it is less irritating than lotions.

Petrolatum also may be used to treat dry skin and mild atopic dermatitis with the soak-and-smear technique,³ which entails soaking the affected skin—or the entire body, if needed—in a plain water bath for 20 minutes and then immediately smearing the skin with petrolatum. Soaking hydrates the damaged stratum corneum and enhances desquamation. The moist stratum corneum absorbs topical treatments more effectively, and desquamation leaves a thinner stratum corneum for the product to traverse. Smearing with petrolatum then traps the moisture in the skin and thus has a dual function by both delivering the petrolatum to the skin and trapping the moisture from the soak. The result is decreased TEWL, improved hydration, and increased penetration, thereby enhancing skin barrier repair.^3,4

Smearing solely with petrolatum is effective in cases not accompanied by considerable inflammation. In cases involving notable inflammation or severe xerosis, a steroidal ointment may be required.³ This generally is done for several nights to 2 weeks before conversion to maintenance therapy. In these cases, petrolatum may then be used as maintenance therapy or bridge therapy for maintenance with simple moisturizers, which decreases recurrence and flares of dermatitis and also prevents continuous exposure to steroidal agents that can result in atrophy and purpura at application sites. The soak-and-smear technique has been found to be effective, with 90% of patients having 90% to 100% clearance.³

Petrolatum also is particularly useful for wound healing. A study on the molecular responses induced by petrolatum found that it significantly upregulated innate immune genes (P<.01), increased antimicrobial peptides (P<.001), and improved epidermal differentiation.⁵ Additionally, it keeps wound edges moist, which enhances angiogenesis, improves collagen synthesis, and increases the breakdown of dead tissue and fibrin.⁶ It also prevents scab formation, which can prolong healing time.⁷

Petrolatum is superior to antibiotic use after clean cutaneous surgery given its excellent safety profile. In one randomized controlled trial comparing petrolatum to bacitracin, petrolatum was found to be just as effective for wound healing with a similar infection rate. Although 4 patients developed allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) with bacitracin use, no patients who used petrolatum developed ACD.⁸ There are numerous other reports of bacitracin causing ACD,^9,10 with a prevalence as high as 22% in chronic leg ulcer patients.¹⁰ There are even multiple reports of bacitracin causing contact urticaria and life-threatening anaphylaxis.¹¹ In the most recent report from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group’s list of top allergens, bacitracin placed 11th with an ACD prevalence of 5.5%. Neomycin, another common postwound emollient, has similar adverse effects and ranked 12th with an ACD prevalence of 5.4%.¹² Despite the risk for ACD with antibiotics, one study on wound care handouts from dermatologists (N=169) found that nearly half (43%) still advocated for the use of antibiotics.¹³ Likewise, another study among nondermatologists found that 40% (10/25) recommended the use of antibiotics for wound care¹⁴ despite strong evidence that topical antibiotics in clean dermatologic procedures offer no additional benefit compared with petrolatum. Additionally, topical antibiotics carry a risk of antibiotic resistance, adverse reactions such as ACD and anaphylaxis, and higher health care costs.⁹ Thus, petrolatum should be used as standard care after clean cutaneous procedures, and the application of antibiotics should be abandoned.

Petrolatum also is an effective treatment for pruritus scroti.¹⁵ It is particularly helpful for recalcitrant disease when several topical medications have failed or ACD or irritant contact dermatitis to medications or cleansing products is suspected. Although topical corticosteroids are the mainstay of treatment, severe burning or redness may occur with prolonged use of these medications, thus it often is useful to discontinue topical medications and treat with plain water sitz baths at night followed by petrolatum immediately applied over wet skin. This approach has several benefits, including soothing the area, providing an occlusive barrier, retaining moisture, and eliminating contact with steroids and potential allergens and irritants. This may be followed with patch testing to determine if ACD from cleansing products or medications is the culprit. This treatment also may be used in pruritus ani or pruritus vulvae.¹⁵

Finally, petrolatum may even be used to treat parasitic skin infections such as cutaneous furuncular myiasis,¹⁶ a condition most commonly caused by the human botfly (Dermatobia hominis) or the African tumbu fly (Cordylobia anthropophaga). The larvae infest the skin by penetrating the dermis and burrowing into the subdermal layer. It is characterized by furuncular nodules with a central black punctum formed by larvae burrowed underneath the skin. An inflammatory reaction occurs in the sites surrounding the larvae with erythematous, edematous, and tender skin. Symptoms range from mild pruritus and a prickly heat sensation to intense cutaneous pain, agitation, and insomnia. Occluding the punctum, or breathing hole, of the infectious organism with petrolatum will asphyxiate the larvae, causing it to emerge within and leading to definitive diagnosis and treatment. This permits rapid removal and avoids extensive incision and extraction.¹⁶

The increased social media attention of petrolatum has raised the awareness of its utility as a moisturizer; however, it has many other uses, including soothing itch and irritation, improving wound healing, alleviating scrotal itch, and treating parasitic skin infections. It not only is an effective product but also is a particularly safe one. Petrolatum is well deserving of its positive reputation in dermatology and its current popularity among the general public

Petrolatum recently has received substantial social media attention. In the last year, the number of TikTok and Instagram videos mentioning petrolatum increased by 46% and 93%, respectively. According to Unilever, the company that manufactures Vaseline, mentions of the product have gone up by 327% on social media compared to last year largely due to a trend known as “slugging,” or the practice of slathering on petrolatum overnight to improve skin hydration.¹ However, petrolatum has a variety of other uses. Given its increase in popularity, we review the many uses of petrolatum within dermatology.

The main reason for petrolatum’s presence on social media is its effectiveness as a moisturizer, which is due to its occlusive property. Its oil-based nature allows it to seal water in the skin by creating a hydrophobic barrier that decreases transepidermal water loss (TEWL). Among available oil-based moisturizers, petrolatum is the most effective in reducing TEWL by 98%, while others only provide reductions of 20% to 30%,² which makes it ideal for soothing itch and irritation in several skin conditions, including dry skin, cheilitis, chafing, and diaper rash. Petrolatum is particularly helpful in sensitive areas where the skin is thinner, such as the eyelids or lips, as it is less irritating than lotions.

Petrolatum also may be used to treat dry skin and mild atopic dermatitis with the soak-and-smear technique,³ which entails soaking the affected skin—or the entire body, if needed—in a plain water bath for 20 minutes and then immediately smearing the skin with petrolatum. Soaking hydrates the damaged stratum corneum and enhances desquamation. The moist stratum corneum absorbs topical treatments more effectively, and desquamation leaves a thinner stratum corneum for the product to traverse. Smearing with petrolatum then traps the moisture in the skin and thus has a dual function by both delivering the petrolatum to the skin and trapping the moisture from the soak. The result is decreased TEWL, improved hydration, and increased penetration, thereby enhancing skin barrier repair.^3,4

Smearing solely with petrolatum is effective in cases not accompanied by considerable inflammation. In cases involving notable inflammation or severe xerosis, a steroidal ointment may be required.³ This generally is done for several nights to 2 weeks before conversion to maintenance therapy. In these cases, petrolatum may then be used as maintenance therapy or bridge therapy for maintenance with simple moisturizers, which decreases recurrence and flares of dermatitis and also prevents continuous exposure to steroidal agents that can result in atrophy and purpura at application sites. The soak-and-smear technique has been found to be effective, with 90% of patients having 90% to 100% clearance.³

Petrolatum also is particularly useful for wound healing. A study on the molecular responses induced by petrolatum found that it significantly upregulated innate immune genes (P<.01), increased antimicrobial peptides (P<.001), and improved epidermal differentiation.⁵ Additionally, it keeps wound edges moist, which enhances angiogenesis, improves collagen synthesis, and increases the breakdown of dead tissue and fibrin.⁶ It also prevents scab formation, which can prolong healing time.⁷

Petrolatum is superior to antibiotic use after clean cutaneous surgery given its excellent safety profile. In one randomized controlled trial comparing petrolatum to bacitracin, petrolatum was found to be just as effective for wound healing with a similar infection rate. Although 4 patients developed allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) with bacitracin use, no patients who used petrolatum developed ACD.⁸ There are numerous other reports of bacitracin causing ACD,^9,10 with a prevalence as high as 22% in chronic leg ulcer patients.¹⁰ There are even multiple reports of bacitracin causing contact urticaria and life-threatening anaphylaxis.¹¹ In the most recent report from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group’s list of top allergens, bacitracin placed 11th with an ACD prevalence of 5.5%. Neomycin, another common postwound emollient, has similar adverse effects and ranked 12th with an ACD prevalence of 5.4%.¹² Despite the risk for ACD with antibiotics, one study on wound care handouts from dermatologists (N=169) found that nearly half (43%) still advocated for the use of antibiotics.¹³ Likewise, another study among nondermatologists found that 40% (10/25) recommended the use of antibiotics for wound care¹⁴ despite strong evidence that topical antibiotics in clean dermatologic procedures offer no additional benefit compared with petrolatum. Additionally, topical antibiotics carry a risk of antibiotic resistance, adverse reactions such as ACD and anaphylaxis, and higher health care costs.⁹ Thus, petrolatum should be used as standard care after clean cutaneous procedures, and the application of antibiotics should be abandoned.

Petrolatum also is an effective treatment for pruritus scroti.¹⁵ It is particularly helpful for recalcitrant disease when several topical medications have failed or ACD or irritant contact dermatitis to medications or cleansing products is suspected. Although topical corticosteroids are the mainstay of treatment, severe burning or redness may occur with prolonged use of these medications, thus it often is useful to discontinue topical medications and treat with plain water sitz baths at night followed by petrolatum immediately applied over wet skin. This approach has several benefits, including soothing the area, providing an occlusive barrier, retaining moisture, and eliminating contact with steroids and potential allergens and irritants. This may be followed with patch testing to determine if ACD from cleansing products or medications is the culprit. This treatment also may be used in pruritus ani or pruritus vulvae.¹⁵

Finally, petrolatum may even be used to treat parasitic skin infections such as cutaneous furuncular myiasis,¹⁶ a condition most commonly caused by the human botfly (Dermatobia hominis) or the African tumbu fly (Cordylobia anthropophaga). The larvae infest the skin by penetrating the dermis and burrowing into the subdermal layer. It is characterized by furuncular nodules with a central black punctum formed by larvae burrowed underneath the skin. An inflammatory reaction occurs in the sites surrounding the larvae with erythematous, edematous, and tender skin. Symptoms range from mild pruritus and a prickly heat sensation to intense cutaneous pain, agitation, and insomnia. Occluding the punctum, or breathing hole, of the infectious organism with petrolatum will asphyxiate the larvae, causing it to emerge within and leading to definitive diagnosis and treatment. This permits rapid removal and avoids extensive incision and extraction.¹⁶

The increased social media attention of petrolatum has raised the awareness of its utility as a moisturizer; however, it has many other uses, including soothing itch and irritation, improving wound healing, alleviating scrotal itch, and treating parasitic skin infections. It not only is an effective product but also is a particularly safe one. Petrolatum is well deserving of its positive reputation in dermatology and its current popularity among the general public

Petrolatum recently has received substantial social media attention. In the last year, the number of TikTok and Instagram videos mentioning petrolatum increased by 46% and 93%, respectively. According to Unilever, the company that manufactures Vaseline, mentions of the product have gone up by 327% on social media compared to last year largely due to a trend known as “slugging,” or the practice of slathering on petrolatum overnight to improve skin hydration.¹ However, petrolatum has a variety of other uses. Given its increase in popularity, we review the many uses of petrolatum within dermatology.

The main reason for petrolatum’s presence on social media is its effectiveness as a moisturizer, which is due to its occlusive property. Its oil-based nature allows it to seal water in the skin by creating a hydrophobic barrier that decreases transepidermal water loss (TEWL). Among available oil-based moisturizers, petrolatum is the most effective in reducing TEWL by 98%, while others only provide reductions of 20% to 30%,² which makes it ideal for soothing itch and irritation in several skin conditions, including dry skin, cheilitis, chafing, and diaper rash. Petrolatum is particularly helpful in sensitive areas where the skin is thinner, such as the eyelids or lips, as it is less irritating than lotions.

Petrolatum also may be used to treat dry skin and mild atopic dermatitis with the soak-and-smear technique,³ which entails soaking the affected skin—or the entire body, if needed—in a plain water bath for 20 minutes and then immediately smearing the skin with petrolatum. Soaking hydrates the damaged stratum corneum and enhances desquamation. The moist stratum corneum absorbs topical treatments more effectively, and desquamation leaves a thinner stratum corneum for the product to traverse. Smearing with petrolatum then traps the moisture in the skin and thus has a dual function by both delivering the petrolatum to the skin and trapping the moisture from the soak. The result is decreased TEWL, improved hydration, and increased penetration, thereby enhancing skin barrier repair.^3,4

Smearing solely with petrolatum is effective in cases not accompanied by considerable inflammation. In cases involving notable inflammation or severe xerosis, a steroidal ointment may be required.³ This generally is done for several nights to 2 weeks before conversion to maintenance therapy. In these cases, petrolatum may then be used as maintenance therapy or bridge therapy for maintenance with simple moisturizers, which decreases recurrence and flares of dermatitis and also prevents continuous exposure to steroidal agents that can result in atrophy and purpura at application sites. The soak-and-smear technique has been found to be effective, with 90% of patients having 90% to 100% clearance.³

Petrolatum also is particularly useful for wound healing. A study on the molecular responses induced by petrolatum found that it significantly upregulated innate immune genes (P<.01), increased antimicrobial peptides (P<.001), and improved epidermal differentiation.⁵ Additionally, it keeps wound edges moist, which enhances angiogenesis, improves collagen synthesis, and increases the breakdown of dead tissue and fibrin.⁶ It also prevents scab formation, which can prolong healing time.⁷

Petrolatum is superior to antibiotic use after clean cutaneous surgery given its excellent safety profile. In one randomized controlled trial comparing petrolatum to bacitracin, petrolatum was found to be just as effective for wound healing with a similar infection rate. Although 4 patients developed allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) with bacitracin use, no patients who used petrolatum developed ACD.⁸ There are numerous other reports of bacitracin causing ACD,^9,10 with a prevalence as high as 22% in chronic leg ulcer patients.¹⁰ There are even multiple reports of bacitracin causing contact urticaria and life-threatening anaphylaxis.¹¹ In the most recent report from the North American Contact Dermatitis Group’s list of top allergens, bacitracin placed 11th with an ACD prevalence of 5.5%. Neomycin, another common postwound emollient, has similar adverse effects and ranked 12th with an ACD prevalence of 5.4%.¹² Despite the risk for ACD with antibiotics, one study on wound care handouts from dermatologists (N=169) found that nearly half (43%) still advocated for the use of antibiotics.¹³ Likewise, another study among nondermatologists found that 40% (10/25) recommended the use of antibiotics for wound care¹⁴ despite strong evidence that topical antibiotics in clean dermatologic procedures offer no additional benefit compared with petrolatum. Additionally, topical antibiotics carry a risk of antibiotic resistance, adverse reactions such as ACD and anaphylaxis, and higher health care costs.⁹ Thus, petrolatum should be used as standard care after clean cutaneous procedures, and the application of antibiotics should be abandoned.

Petrolatum also is an effective treatment for pruritus scroti.¹⁵ It is particularly helpful for recalcitrant disease when several topical medications have failed or ACD or irritant contact dermatitis to medications or cleansing products is suspected. Although topical corticosteroids are the mainstay of treatment, severe burning or redness may occur with prolonged use of these medications, thus it often is useful to discontinue topical medications and treat with plain water sitz baths at night followed by petrolatum immediately applied over wet skin. This approach has several benefits, including soothing the area, providing an occlusive barrier, retaining moisture, and eliminating contact with steroids and potential allergens and irritants. This may be followed with patch testing to determine if ACD from cleansing products or medications is the culprit. This treatment also may be used in pruritus ani or pruritus vulvae.¹⁵

Finally, petrolatum may even be used to treat parasitic skin infections such as cutaneous furuncular myiasis,¹⁶ a condition most commonly caused by the human botfly (Dermatobia hominis) or the African tumbu fly (Cordylobia anthropophaga). The larvae infest the skin by penetrating the dermis and burrowing into the subdermal layer. It is characterized by furuncular nodules with a central black punctum formed by larvae burrowed underneath the skin. An inflammatory reaction occurs in the sites surrounding the larvae with erythematous, edematous, and tender skin. Symptoms range from mild pruritus and a prickly heat sensation to intense cutaneous pain, agitation, and insomnia. Occluding the punctum, or breathing hole, of the infectious organism with petrolatum will asphyxiate the larvae, causing it to emerge within and leading to definitive diagnosis and treatment. This permits rapid removal and avoids extensive incision and extraction.¹⁶

The increased social media attention of petrolatum has raised the awareness of its utility as a moisturizer; however, it has many other uses, including soothing itch and irritation, improving wound healing, alleviating scrotal itch, and treating parasitic skin infections. It not only is an effective product but also is a particularly safe one. Petrolatum is well deserving of its positive reputation in dermatology and its current popularity among the general public

Approximately 4.5% of adults within the United States identify as members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) community.¹ This is an umbrella term inclusive of all individuals identifying as nonheterosexual or noncisgender. Although the LGBT community has increasingly become more recognized and accepted by society over time, health care disparities persist and have been well documented in the literature.^2-4 Dermatologists have the potential to greatly impact LGBT health, as many health concerns in this population are cutaneous, such as sun-protection behaviors, side effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy and gender-affirming procedures, and cutaneous manifestations of sexually transmitted infections.^5-7

An education gap has been demonstrated in both medical students and resident physicians regarding LGBT health and cultural competency. In a large-scale, multi-institutional survey study published in 2015, approximately two-thirds of medical students rated their schools’ LGBT curriculum as fair, poor, or very poor.⁸ Additional studies have echoed these results and have demonstrated not only the need but the desire for additional training on LGBT issues in medical school.^9-11 The Association of American Medical Colleges has begun implementing curricular and institutional changes to fulfill this need.^12,13

The LGBT education gap has been shown to extend into residency training. Multiple studies performed within a variety of medical specialties have demonstrated that resident physicians receive insufficient training in LGBT health issues, lack comfort in caring for LGBT patients, and would benefit from dedicated curricula on these topics.^14-18 Currently, the 2022 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) guidelines related to LGBT health are minimal and nonspecific.¹⁹

Ensuring that dermatology trainees are well equipped to manage these issues while providing culturally competent care to LGBT patients is paramount. However, research suggests that dedicated training on these topics likely is insufficient. A survey study of dermatology residency program directors (N=90) revealed that although 81% (72/89) viewed training in LGBT health as either very important or somewhat important, 46% (41/90) of programs did not dedicate any time to this content and 37% (33/90) only dedicated 1 to 2 hours per year.²⁰

To further explore this potential education gap, we surveyed dermatology residents directly to better understand LGBT education within residency training, resident preparedness to care for LGBT patients, and outness/discrimination of LGBT-identifying residents. We believe this study should drive future research on the development and implementation of LGBT-specific curricula in dermatology training programs.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey study of dermatology residents in the United States was conducted. The study was deemed exempt from review by The Ohio State University (Columbus, Ohio) institutional review board. Survey responses were collected from October 7, 2020, to November 13, 2020. Qualtrics software was used to create the 20-question survey, which included a combination of categorical, dichotomous, and optional free-text questions related to patient demographics, LGBT training experiences, perceived areas of curriculum improvement, comfort level managing LGBT health issues, and personal experiences. Some questions were adapted from prior surveys.^15,21 Validated survey tools used included the 2020 US Census to collect information regarding race and ethnicity, the Mohr and Fassinger Outness Inventory to measure outness regarding sexual orientation, and select questions from the 2020 Association of American Medical Colleges Medical School Graduation Questionnaire regarding discrimination.^22-24

The survey was distributed to current allopathic and osteopathic dermatology residents by a variety of methods, including emails to program director and program coordinator listserves. The survey also was posted in the American Academy of Dermatology Expert Resource Group on LGBTQ Health October 2020 newsletter, as well as dermatology social media groups, including a messaging forum limited to dermatology residents, a Facebook group open to dermatologists and dermatology residents, and the Facebook group of the Gay and Lesbian Dermatology Association. Current dermatology residents, including those in combined dermatology and internal medicine programs, were included. Individuals who had been accepted to dermatology training programs but had not yet started were excluded. A follow-up email was sent to the program director listserve approximately 3 weeks after the initial distribution.

Statistical Analysis—The data were analyzed in Qualtrics and Microsoft Excel using descriptive statistics. Stata software (Stata 15.1, StataCorp) was used to perform a Kruskal-Wallis equality-of-populations rank test to compare the means of education level and feelings of preparedness.

Results

Demographics of Respondents—A total of 126 responses were recorded, 12 of which were blank and were removed from the database. A total of 114 dermatology residents’ responses were collected in Qualtrics and analyzed; 91 completed the entire survey (an 80% completion rate). Based on the 2020-2021 ACGME data listing, there were 1612 dermatology residents in the United States, which is an estimated response rate of 7% (114/1612).²⁵ The eTable outlines the demographics of the survey respondents. Most were cisgender females (60%), followed by cisgender males (35%); the remainder preferred not to answer. Regarding sexual orientation, 77% identified as straight or heterosexual; 17% as gay, lesbian, or homosexual; 1% as queer; and 1% as bisexual. The training programs were in 26 states, the majority of which were in the Midwest (34%) and in urban settings (69%). A wide range of postgraduate levels and residency sizes were represented in the survey.

LGBT Education—Fifty-one percent of respondents reported that their programs offer 1 hour or less of LGBT-related curricula per year; 34% reported no time dedicated to this topic. A small portion of residents (5%) reported 10 or more hours of LGBT education per year. Residents also were asked the average number of hours of LGBT education they thought they should receive. The discrepancy between these measures can be visualized in Figure 1. The median hours of education received was 1 hour (IQR, 0–4 hours), whereas the median hours of education desired was 4 hours (IQR, 2–5 hours). The most common and most helpful methods of education reported were clinical experiences with faculty or patients and live lectures.

Overall, 45% of survey respondents felt that LGBT topics were covered poorly or not at all in dermatology residency, whereas 26% thought the coverage was good or excellent. The topics that residents were most likely to report receiving good or excellent coverage were dermatologic manifestations of HIV/AIDS (70%) and sexually transmitted diseases in LGBT patients (48%). The topics that were most likely to be reported as not taught or poorly taught included dermatologic concerns associated with puberty blockers (71%), body image (58%), dermatologic concerns associated with gender-affirming surgery (55%), skin cancer risk (53%), taking an LGBT-oriented history and physical examination (52%), and effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy on the skin (50%). A detailed breakdown of coverage level by topic can be found in Figure 2.

Preparedness to Care for LGBT Patients—Only 68% of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they feel comfortable treating LGBT patients. Furthermore, 49% of dermatology residents reported that they feel not at all prepared or insufficiently prepared to provide care to LGBT individuals (Figure 2), and 60% believed that LGBT training needed to be improved at their residency programs.

There was a significant association between reported level of education and feelings of preparedness. A high ranking of provided education was associated with higher levels of feeling prepared to care for LGBT patients (Kruskal-Wallis rank test, P<.001).

Discrimination/Outness—Approximately one-fourth (24%; 4/17) of nonheterosexual dermatology residents reported that they had been subjected to offensive remarks about their sexual orientation in the workplace. One respondent commented that they were less “out” at their residency program due to fear of discrimination. Nearly one-third of the overall group of dermatology residents surveyed (29%; 27/92) reported that they had witnessed inappropriate or discriminatory comments about LGBT persons made by employees or staff at their programs. Most residents surveyed (96%; 88/92) agreed or strongly agreed that they feel comfortable working alongside LGBT physicians.

There were 18 nonheterosexual dermatologyresidents who completed the Mohr and Fassinger Outness Inventory.²³ In general, respondents reported that they were more “out” with friends and family than work peers and were least “out” with work supervisors and strangers.

Comment

Dermatology Residents Desire More Time on LGBT Health—This cross-sectional survey study explored dermatology residents’ educational experiences with LGBT health during residency training. Similar studies have been performed in other specialties, including a study from 2019 surveying emergency medicine residents that demonstrated residents find caring for LGBT patients more challenging.¹⁵ Another 2019 study surveying psychiatry residents found that 42.4% (N=99) reported no coverage of LGBT topics.¹⁸ Our study is unique in that it surveyed dermatology residents directly regarding this topic. Although most dermatology program directors view LGBT dermatologic health as an important topic, a prior study revealed that many programs are lacking dedicated LGBT educational experiences. The most common barriers reported were insufficient time in the didactic schedule and lack of experienced faculty.²⁰

Our study revealed that dermatology residents overall tend to agree with residents from other specialties and dermatology program directors. Most of the dermatology residents surveyed reported desiring more time per year spent on LGBT health education than they receive, and 60% expressed that LGBT educational experiences need to be improved at their residency programs. Education on and subsequent comfort level with LGBT health issues varied by subtopic, with most residents feeling comfortable dealing with dermatologic manifestations of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases and less comfortable with topics such as puberty blockers, gender-affirming surgery and hormone therapy, body image, and skin cancer risk.

Overall, LGBT health training is viewed as important and in need of improvement by both program directors and residents, yet implementation lags at many programs. A small proportion of the represented programs are excelling in this area—just over 5% of respondents reported receiving 10 or more hours of LGBT-relevant education per year, and approximately 26% of residents felt that LGBT coverage was good or excellent at their programs. Our study showed a clear relationship between feelings of preparedness and education level. The lack of LGBT education at some dermatology residency programs translated into a large portion of dermatology residents feeling ill equipped to care for LGBT patients after graduation—nearly 50% of those surveyed reported feeling insufficiently prepared to care for the LGBT community.

Discrimination in Residency Programs—Dermatology residency programs also are not free from sexual orientation–related and gender identity–related workplace discrimination. Although 96% of dermatology residents reported that they feel comfortable working alongside LGBT physicians, 24% of nonheterosexual respondents stated they had been subjected to offensive remarks about their sexual orientation, and 29% of the overall group of dermatology residents had witnessed discriminatory comments to LGBT individuals at their programs. In addition, some nonheterosexual dermatology residents reported being less “out” with their workplace supervisors and strangers, such as patients, than with their family and friends, and 50% of this group reported that their sexual identity was not openly discussed with their workplace supervisors. It has been demonstrated that individuals are more likely to “come out” in perceived LGBT-friendly workplace environments and that being “out” positively impacts psychological health because of the effects of perceived social support and self-coherence.^26,27

Study Strengths and Limitations—Strengths of this study include the modest sample size of dermatology residents that participated, high completion rate, and the anonymity of the survey. Limitations include the risk of sampling bias by posting the survey on LGBT-specific groups. The survey also took place in the fall, so the results may not accurately reflect programs that cover this material later in the academic year. Lastly, not all survey questions were validated.

Implementing Change in Residency Programs—Although the results of this study exposed the need for increasing LGBT education in dermatology residency, they do not provide guidelines for the best strategy to begin implementing change. A study from 2020 provides some guidance for incorporating LGBT health training into dermatology residency programs through a combination of curricular modifications and climate optimization.²⁸ Additional future research should focus on the best methods for preparing dermatology residents to care for this population. In this study, residents reported that the most effective teaching methods were real encounters with LGBT patients or faculty educated on LGBT health as well as live lectures from experts. There also appeared to be a correlation between hours spent on LGBT health, including various subtopics, and residents’ perceived preparedness in these areas. Potential actionable items include clarifying the ACGME guidelines on LGBT health topics; increasing the sexual and gender diversity of the faculty, staff, residents, and patients; and dedicating additional didactic and clinical time to LGBT topics and experiences.

Conclusion

This survey study of dermatology residents regarding LGBT learning experiences in residency training provided evidence that dermatology residents as a whole are not adequately taught LGBT health topics and therefore feel unprepared to take care of this patient population. Additionally, most residents desire improvement of LGBT health education and training. Further studies focusing on the best methods for implementing LGBT-specific curricula are needed.

Approximately 4.5% of adults within the United States identify as members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) community.¹ This is an umbrella term inclusive of all individuals identifying as nonheterosexual or noncisgender. Although the LGBT community has increasingly become more recognized and accepted by society over time, health care disparities persist and have been well documented in the literature.^2-4 Dermatologists have the potential to greatly impact LGBT health, as many health concerns in this population are cutaneous, such as sun-protection behaviors, side effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy and gender-affirming procedures, and cutaneous manifestations of sexually transmitted infections.^5-7

An education gap has been demonstrated in both medical students and resident physicians regarding LGBT health and cultural competency. In a large-scale, multi-institutional survey study published in 2015, approximately two-thirds of medical students rated their schools’ LGBT curriculum as fair, poor, or very poor.⁸ Additional studies have echoed these results and have demonstrated not only the need but the desire for additional training on LGBT issues in medical school.^9-11 The Association of American Medical Colleges has begun implementing curricular and institutional changes to fulfill this need.^12,13

The LGBT education gap has been shown to extend into residency training. Multiple studies performed within a variety of medical specialties have demonstrated that resident physicians receive insufficient training in LGBT health issues, lack comfort in caring for LGBT patients, and would benefit from dedicated curricula on these topics.^14-18 Currently, the 2022 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) guidelines related to LGBT health are minimal and nonspecific.¹⁹

Ensuring that dermatology trainees are well equipped to manage these issues while providing culturally competent care to LGBT patients is paramount. However, research suggests that dedicated training on these topics likely is insufficient. A survey study of dermatology residency program directors (N=90) revealed that although 81% (72/89) viewed training in LGBT health as either very important or somewhat important, 46% (41/90) of programs did not dedicate any time to this content and 37% (33/90) only dedicated 1 to 2 hours per year.²⁰

To further explore this potential education gap, we surveyed dermatology residents directly to better understand LGBT education within residency training, resident preparedness to care for LGBT patients, and outness/discrimination of LGBT-identifying residents. We believe this study should drive future research on the development and implementation of LGBT-specific curricula in dermatology training programs.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey study of dermatology residents in the United States was conducted. The study was deemed exempt from review by The Ohio State University (Columbus, Ohio) institutional review board. Survey responses were collected from October 7, 2020, to November 13, 2020. Qualtrics software was used to create the 20-question survey, which included a combination of categorical, dichotomous, and optional free-text questions related to patient demographics, LGBT training experiences, perceived areas of curriculum improvement, comfort level managing LGBT health issues, and personal experiences. Some questions were adapted from prior surveys.^15,21 Validated survey tools used included the 2020 US Census to collect information regarding race and ethnicity, the Mohr and Fassinger Outness Inventory to measure outness regarding sexual orientation, and select questions from the 2020 Association of American Medical Colleges Medical School Graduation Questionnaire regarding discrimination.^22-24

The survey was distributed to current allopathic and osteopathic dermatology residents by a variety of methods, including emails to program director and program coordinator listserves. The survey also was posted in the American Academy of Dermatology Expert Resource Group on LGBTQ Health October 2020 newsletter, as well as dermatology social media groups, including a messaging forum limited to dermatology residents, a Facebook group open to dermatologists and dermatology residents, and the Facebook group of the Gay and Lesbian Dermatology Association. Current dermatology residents, including those in combined dermatology and internal medicine programs, were included. Individuals who had been accepted to dermatology training programs but had not yet started were excluded. A follow-up email was sent to the program director listserve approximately 3 weeks after the initial distribution.

Statistical Analysis—The data were analyzed in Qualtrics and Microsoft Excel using descriptive statistics. Stata software (Stata 15.1, StataCorp) was used to perform a Kruskal-Wallis equality-of-populations rank test to compare the means of education level and feelings of preparedness.

Results

Demographics of Respondents—A total of 126 responses were recorded, 12 of which were blank and were removed from the database. A total of 114 dermatology residents’ responses were collected in Qualtrics and analyzed; 91 completed the entire survey (an 80% completion rate). Based on the 2020-2021 ACGME data listing, there were 1612 dermatology residents in the United States, which is an estimated response rate of 7% (114/1612).²⁵ The eTable outlines the demographics of the survey respondents. Most were cisgender females (60%), followed by cisgender males (35%); the remainder preferred not to answer. Regarding sexual orientation, 77% identified as straight or heterosexual; 17% as gay, lesbian, or homosexual; 1% as queer; and 1% as bisexual. The training programs were in 26 states, the majority of which were in the Midwest (34%) and in urban settings (69%). A wide range of postgraduate levels and residency sizes were represented in the survey.

LGBT Education—Fifty-one percent of respondents reported that their programs offer 1 hour or less of LGBT-related curricula per year; 34% reported no time dedicated to this topic. A small portion of residents (5%) reported 10 or more hours of LGBT education per year. Residents also were asked the average number of hours of LGBT education they thought they should receive. The discrepancy between these measures can be visualized in Figure 1. The median hours of education received was 1 hour (IQR, 0–4 hours), whereas the median hours of education desired was 4 hours (IQR, 2–5 hours). The most common and most helpful methods of education reported were clinical experiences with faculty or patients and live lectures.

Overall, 45% of survey respondents felt that LGBT topics were covered poorly or not at all in dermatology residency, whereas 26% thought the coverage was good or excellent. The topics that residents were most likely to report receiving good or excellent coverage were dermatologic manifestations of HIV/AIDS (70%) and sexually transmitted diseases in LGBT patients (48%). The topics that were most likely to be reported as not taught or poorly taught included dermatologic concerns associated with puberty blockers (71%), body image (58%), dermatologic concerns associated with gender-affirming surgery (55%), skin cancer risk (53%), taking an LGBT-oriented history and physical examination (52%), and effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy on the skin (50%). A detailed breakdown of coverage level by topic can be found in Figure 2.

Preparedness to Care for LGBT Patients—Only 68% of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they feel comfortable treating LGBT patients. Furthermore, 49% of dermatology residents reported that they feel not at all prepared or insufficiently prepared to provide care to LGBT individuals (Figure 2), and 60% believed that LGBT training needed to be improved at their residency programs.

There was a significant association between reported level of education and feelings of preparedness. A high ranking of provided education was associated with higher levels of feeling prepared to care for LGBT patients (Kruskal-Wallis rank test, P<.001).

Discrimination/Outness—Approximately one-fourth (24%; 4/17) of nonheterosexual dermatology residents reported that they had been subjected to offensive remarks about their sexual orientation in the workplace. One respondent commented that they were less “out” at their residency program due to fear of discrimination. Nearly one-third of the overall group of dermatology residents surveyed (29%; 27/92) reported that they had witnessed inappropriate or discriminatory comments about LGBT persons made by employees or staff at their programs. Most residents surveyed (96%; 88/92) agreed or strongly agreed that they feel comfortable working alongside LGBT physicians.

There were 18 nonheterosexual dermatologyresidents who completed the Mohr and Fassinger Outness Inventory.²³ In general, respondents reported that they were more “out” with friends and family than work peers and were least “out” with work supervisors and strangers.

Comment

Dermatology Residents Desire More Time on LGBT Health—This cross-sectional survey study explored dermatology residents’ educational experiences with LGBT health during residency training. Similar studies have been performed in other specialties, including a study from 2019 surveying emergency medicine residents that demonstrated residents find caring for LGBT patients more challenging.¹⁵ Another 2019 study surveying psychiatry residents found that 42.4% (N=99) reported no coverage of LGBT topics.¹⁸ Our study is unique in that it surveyed dermatology residents directly regarding this topic. Although most dermatology program directors view LGBT dermatologic health as an important topic, a prior study revealed that many programs are lacking dedicated LGBT educational experiences. The most common barriers reported were insufficient time in the didactic schedule and lack of experienced faculty.²⁰

Our study revealed that dermatology residents overall tend to agree with residents from other specialties and dermatology program directors. Most of the dermatology residents surveyed reported desiring more time per year spent on LGBT health education than they receive, and 60% expressed that LGBT educational experiences need to be improved at their residency programs. Education on and subsequent comfort level with LGBT health issues varied by subtopic, with most residents feeling comfortable dealing with dermatologic manifestations of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases and less comfortable with topics such as puberty blockers, gender-affirming surgery and hormone therapy, body image, and skin cancer risk.

Overall, LGBT health training is viewed as important and in need of improvement by both program directors and residents, yet implementation lags at many programs. A small proportion of the represented programs are excelling in this area—just over 5% of respondents reported receiving 10 or more hours of LGBT-relevant education per year, and approximately 26% of residents felt that LGBT coverage was good or excellent at their programs. Our study showed a clear relationship between feelings of preparedness and education level. The lack of LGBT education at some dermatology residency programs translated into a large portion of dermatology residents feeling ill equipped to care for LGBT patients after graduation—nearly 50% of those surveyed reported feeling insufficiently prepared to care for the LGBT community.

Discrimination in Residency Programs—Dermatology residency programs also are not free from sexual orientation–related and gender identity–related workplace discrimination. Although 96% of dermatology residents reported that they feel comfortable working alongside LGBT physicians, 24% of nonheterosexual respondents stated they had been subjected to offensive remarks about their sexual orientation, and 29% of the overall group of dermatology residents had witnessed discriminatory comments to LGBT individuals at their programs. In addition, some nonheterosexual dermatology residents reported being less “out” with their workplace supervisors and strangers, such as patients, than with their family and friends, and 50% of this group reported that their sexual identity was not openly discussed with their workplace supervisors. It has been demonstrated that individuals are more likely to “come out” in perceived LGBT-friendly workplace environments and that being “out” positively impacts psychological health because of the effects of perceived social support and self-coherence.^26,27

Study Strengths and Limitations—Strengths of this study include the modest sample size of dermatology residents that participated, high completion rate, and the anonymity of the survey. Limitations include the risk of sampling bias by posting the survey on LGBT-specific groups. The survey also took place in the fall, so the results may not accurately reflect programs that cover this material later in the academic year. Lastly, not all survey questions were validated.

Implementing Change in Residency Programs—Although the results of this study exposed the need for increasing LGBT education in dermatology residency, they do not provide guidelines for the best strategy to begin implementing change. A study from 2020 provides some guidance for incorporating LGBT health training into dermatology residency programs through a combination of curricular modifications and climate optimization.²⁸ Additional future research should focus on the best methods for preparing dermatology residents to care for this population. In this study, residents reported that the most effective teaching methods were real encounters with LGBT patients or faculty educated on LGBT health as well as live lectures from experts. There also appeared to be a correlation between hours spent on LGBT health, including various subtopics, and residents’ perceived preparedness in these areas. Potential actionable items include clarifying the ACGME guidelines on LGBT health topics; increasing the sexual and gender diversity of the faculty, staff, residents, and patients; and dedicating additional didactic and clinical time to LGBT topics and experiences.

Conclusion

This survey study of dermatology residents regarding LGBT learning experiences in residency training provided evidence that dermatology residents as a whole are not adequately taught LGBT health topics and therefore feel unprepared to take care of this patient population. Additionally, most residents desire improvement of LGBT health education and training. Further studies focusing on the best methods for implementing LGBT-specific curricula are needed.

Approximately 4.5% of adults within the United States identify as members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) community.¹ This is an umbrella term inclusive of all individuals identifying as nonheterosexual or noncisgender. Although the LGBT community has increasingly become more recognized and accepted by society over time, health care disparities persist and have been well documented in the literature.^2-4 Dermatologists have the potential to greatly impact LGBT health, as many health concerns in this population are cutaneous, such as sun-protection behaviors, side effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy and gender-affirming procedures, and cutaneous manifestations of sexually transmitted infections.^5-7

An education gap has been demonstrated in both medical students and resident physicians regarding LGBT health and cultural competency. In a large-scale, multi-institutional survey study published in 2015, approximately two-thirds of medical students rated their schools’ LGBT curriculum as fair, poor, or very poor.⁸ Additional studies have echoed these results and have demonstrated not only the need but the desire for additional training on LGBT issues in medical school.^9-11 The Association of American Medical Colleges has begun implementing curricular and institutional changes to fulfill this need.^12,13

The LGBT education gap has been shown to extend into residency training. Multiple studies performed within a variety of medical specialties have demonstrated that resident physicians receive insufficient training in LGBT health issues, lack comfort in caring for LGBT patients, and would benefit from dedicated curricula on these topics.^14-18 Currently, the 2022 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) guidelines related to LGBT health are minimal and nonspecific.¹⁹

Ensuring that dermatology trainees are well equipped to manage these issues while providing culturally competent care to LGBT patients is paramount. However, research suggests that dedicated training on these topics likely is insufficient. A survey study of dermatology residency program directors (N=90) revealed that although 81% (72/89) viewed training in LGBT health as either very important or somewhat important, 46% (41/90) of programs did not dedicate any time to this content and 37% (33/90) only dedicated 1 to 2 hours per year.²⁰

To further explore this potential education gap, we surveyed dermatology residents directly to better understand LGBT education within residency training, resident preparedness to care for LGBT patients, and outness/discrimination of LGBT-identifying residents. We believe this study should drive future research on the development and implementation of LGBT-specific curricula in dermatology training programs.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey study of dermatology residents in the United States was conducted. The study was deemed exempt from review by The Ohio State University (Columbus, Ohio) institutional review board. Survey responses were collected from October 7, 2020, to November 13, 2020. Qualtrics software was used to create the 20-question survey, which included a combination of categorical, dichotomous, and optional free-text questions related to patient demographics, LGBT training experiences, perceived areas of curriculum improvement, comfort level managing LGBT health issues, and personal experiences. Some questions were adapted from prior surveys.^15,21 Validated survey tools used included the 2020 US Census to collect information regarding race and ethnicity, the Mohr and Fassinger Outness Inventory to measure outness regarding sexual orientation, and select questions from the 2020 Association of American Medical Colleges Medical School Graduation Questionnaire regarding discrimination.^22-24

The survey was distributed to current allopathic and osteopathic dermatology residents by a variety of methods, including emails to program director and program coordinator listserves. The survey also was posted in the American Academy of Dermatology Expert Resource Group on LGBTQ Health October 2020 newsletter, as well as dermatology social media groups, including a messaging forum limited to dermatology residents, a Facebook group open to dermatologists and dermatology residents, and the Facebook group of the Gay and Lesbian Dermatology Association. Current dermatology residents, including those in combined dermatology and internal medicine programs, were included. Individuals who had been accepted to dermatology training programs but had not yet started were excluded. A follow-up email was sent to the program director listserve approximately 3 weeks after the initial distribution.

Statistical Analysis—The data were analyzed in Qualtrics and Microsoft Excel using descriptive statistics. Stata software (Stata 15.1, StataCorp) was used to perform a Kruskal-Wallis equality-of-populations rank test to compare the means of education level and feelings of preparedness.

Results

Demographics of Respondents—A total of 126 responses were recorded, 12 of which were blank and were removed from the database. A total of 114 dermatology residents’ responses were collected in Qualtrics and analyzed; 91 completed the entire survey (an 80% completion rate). Based on the 2020-2021 ACGME data listing, there were 1612 dermatology residents in the United States, which is an estimated response rate of 7% (114/1612).²⁵ The eTable outlines the demographics of the survey respondents. Most were cisgender females (60%), followed by cisgender males (35%); the remainder preferred not to answer. Regarding sexual orientation, 77% identified as straight or heterosexual; 17% as gay, lesbian, or homosexual; 1% as queer; and 1% as bisexual. The training programs were in 26 states, the majority of which were in the Midwest (34%) and in urban settings (69%). A wide range of postgraduate levels and residency sizes were represented in the survey.

LGBT Education—Fifty-one percent of respondents reported that their programs offer 1 hour or less of LGBT-related curricula per year; 34% reported no time dedicated to this topic. A small portion of residents (5%) reported 10 or more hours of LGBT education per year. Residents also were asked the average number of hours of LGBT education they thought they should receive. The discrepancy between these measures can be visualized in Figure 1. The median hours of education received was 1 hour (IQR, 0–4 hours), whereas the median hours of education desired was 4 hours (IQR, 2–5 hours). The most common and most helpful methods of education reported were clinical experiences with faculty or patients and live lectures.

Overall, 45% of survey respondents felt that LGBT topics were covered poorly or not at all in dermatology residency, whereas 26% thought the coverage was good or excellent. The topics that residents were most likely to report receiving good or excellent coverage were dermatologic manifestations of HIV/AIDS (70%) and sexually transmitted diseases in LGBT patients (48%). The topics that were most likely to be reported as not taught or poorly taught included dermatologic concerns associated with puberty blockers (71%), body image (58%), dermatologic concerns associated with gender-affirming surgery (55%), skin cancer risk (53%), taking an LGBT-oriented history and physical examination (52%), and effects of gender-affirming hormone therapy on the skin (50%). A detailed breakdown of coverage level by topic can be found in Figure 2.

Preparedness to Care for LGBT Patients—Only 68% of survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they feel comfortable treating LGBT patients. Furthermore, 49% of dermatology residents reported that they feel not at all prepared or insufficiently prepared to provide care to LGBT individuals (Figure 2), and 60% believed that LGBT training needed to be improved at their residency programs.

There was a significant association between reported level of education and feelings of preparedness. A high ranking of provided education was associated with higher levels of feeling prepared to care for LGBT patients (Kruskal-Wallis rank test, P<.001).

Discrimination/Outness—Approximately one-fourth (24%; 4/17) of nonheterosexual dermatology residents reported that they had been subjected to offensive remarks about their sexual orientation in the workplace. One respondent commented that they were less “out” at their residency program due to fear of discrimination. Nearly one-third of the overall group of dermatology residents surveyed (29%; 27/92) reported that they had witnessed inappropriate or discriminatory comments about LGBT persons made by employees or staff at their programs. Most residents surveyed (96%; 88/92) agreed or strongly agreed that they feel comfortable working alongside LGBT physicians.

There were 18 nonheterosexual dermatologyresidents who completed the Mohr and Fassinger Outness Inventory.²³ In general, respondents reported that they were more “out” with friends and family than work peers and were least “out” with work supervisors and strangers.

Comment

Dermatology Residents Desire More Time on LGBT Health—This cross-sectional survey study explored dermatology residents’ educational experiences with LGBT health during residency training. Similar studies have been performed in other specialties, including a study from 2019 surveying emergency medicine residents that demonstrated residents find caring for LGBT patients more challenging.¹⁵ Another 2019 study surveying psychiatry residents found that 42.4% (N=99) reported no coverage of LGBT topics.¹⁸ Our study is unique in that it surveyed dermatology residents directly regarding this topic. Although most dermatology program directors view LGBT dermatologic health as an important topic, a prior study revealed that many programs are lacking dedicated LGBT educational experiences. The most common barriers reported were insufficient time in the didactic schedule and lack of experienced faculty.²⁰

Our study revealed that dermatology residents overall tend to agree with residents from other specialties and dermatology program directors. Most of the dermatology residents surveyed reported desiring more time per year spent on LGBT health education than they receive, and 60% expressed that LGBT educational experiences need to be improved at their residency programs. Education on and subsequent comfort level with LGBT health issues varied by subtopic, with most residents feeling comfortable dealing with dermatologic manifestations of HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases and less comfortable with topics such as puberty blockers, gender-affirming surgery and hormone therapy, body image, and skin cancer risk.

Overall, LGBT health training is viewed as important and in need of improvement by both program directors and residents, yet implementation lags at many programs. A small proportion of the represented programs are excelling in this area—just over 5% of respondents reported receiving 10 or more hours of LGBT-relevant education per year, and approximately 26% of residents felt that LGBT coverage was good or excellent at their programs. Our study showed a clear relationship between feelings of preparedness and education level. The lack of LGBT education at some dermatology residency programs translated into a large portion of dermatology residents feeling ill equipped to care for LGBT patients after graduation—nearly 50% of those surveyed reported feeling insufficiently prepared to care for the LGBT community.

Discrimination in Residency Programs—Dermatology residency programs also are not free from sexual orientation–related and gender identity–related workplace discrimination. Although 96% of dermatology residents reported that they feel comfortable working alongside LGBT physicians, 24% of nonheterosexual respondents stated they had been subjected to offensive remarks about their sexual orientation, and 29% of the overall group of dermatology residents had witnessed discriminatory comments to LGBT individuals at their programs. In addition, some nonheterosexual dermatology residents reported being less “out” with their workplace supervisors and strangers, such as patients, than with their family and friends, and 50% of this group reported that their sexual identity was not openly discussed with their workplace supervisors. It has been demonstrated that individuals are more likely to “come out” in perceived LGBT-friendly workplace environments and that being “out” positively impacts psychological health because of the effects of perceived social support and self-coherence.^26,27

Study Strengths and Limitations—Strengths of this study include the modest sample size of dermatology residents that participated, high completion rate, and the anonymity of the survey. Limitations include the risk of sampling bias by posting the survey on LGBT-specific groups. The survey also took place in the fall, so the results may not accurately reflect programs that cover this material later in the academic year. Lastly, not all survey questions were validated.

Implementing Change in Residency Programs—Although the results of this study exposed the need for increasing LGBT education in dermatology residency, they do not provide guidelines for the best strategy to begin implementing change. A study from 2020 provides some guidance for incorporating LGBT health training into dermatology residency programs through a combination of curricular modifications and climate optimization.²⁸ Additional future research should focus on the best methods for preparing dermatology residents to care for this population. In this study, residents reported that the most effective teaching methods were real encounters with LGBT patients or faculty educated on LGBT health as well as live lectures from experts. There also appeared to be a correlation between hours spent on LGBT health, including various subtopics, and residents’ perceived preparedness in these areas. Potential actionable items include clarifying the ACGME guidelines on LGBT health topics; increasing the sexual and gender diversity of the faculty, staff, residents, and patients; and dedicating additional didactic and clinical time to LGBT topics and experiences.

Conclusion

This survey study of dermatology residents regarding LGBT learning experiences in residency training provided evidence that dermatology residents as a whole are not adequately taught LGBT health topics and therefore feel unprepared to take care of this patient population. Additionally, most residents desire improvement of LGBT health education and training. Further studies focusing on the best methods for implementing LGBT-specific curricula are needed.

French children with peanut allergy tend to have reactions to other legumes, including soy, lentil, pea, bean, lupin, and fenugreek, and those other allergies often lead to anaphylactic reactions, a retrospective study reports.

“Among children allergic to peanut, at least two-thirds were sensitized to one other legume, and legume allergy was diagnosed in one-quarter of the sensitized patients,” senior study author Amandine Divaret-Chauveau, MD, of the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nancy in Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, France, and colleagues reported in Pediatric Allergy and Immunology.

People worldwide are eating more legumes these days, the authors noted. High in protein, low in unsaturated fats, with low production costs, legumes are important components of increasingly vegetarian, healthy, sustainable diets.

Food allergens are the most common childhood triggers of allergic reactions. Among children in France, legumes cause 14.6% of food-related anaphylactic reactions, with peanut as the main allergen, they added.

Dr. Divaret-Chauveau and colleagues assessed the prevalence and relevance of sensitization to legumes among all children and adolescents aged 1-17 years who had peanut allergy and had been admitted to one academic pediatric allergy department over roughly 3 years, beginning in early 2017. For the 195 study participants, peanut allergy had been confirmed, and they had been documented to have consumed or to have sensitization to at least one nonpeanut legume; 69.7% were boys.

The researchers analyzed data on consumption history, skin-prick tests, specific immunoglobulin E status, prior allergic reactions, and oral food challenges for each legume. They found the following:

Among the 195 children with peanut allergy, 98.4% had at least one other atopic disease.

Of the 195 children with peanut allergy, 122 (63.9%) were sensitized to at least one other legume. Of these 122 children, 66.3% were sensitized to fenugreek, 42.2% to lentil, 39.9% to soy, and 34.2% to lupin.

Allergy to one or more legumes was confirmed for 27.9% of the 122 sensitized children, including 4.9% who had multiple legume allergies. Lentil, lupin, and pea were the main allergens.

Of the 118 children also having a nonlegume food allergy, the main food allergens were egg (57.6%), cow’s milk (33.0%), cashew (39.0%), pistachio (23.7%), and hazelnut (30.5%).

50% of allergic reactions to nonpeanut legumes were severe, often showing as asthma. Atopic comorbidities, including asthma, in most participants may have contributed to the severity of allergic reactions, the authors noted.
 

Allergy awareness needs to grow with plant-based diets

“The high prevalence of legume sensitization reported in our study highlights the need to explore legume consumption in children with PA [peanut allergy], and the need to investigate sensitization in the absence of consumption,” they added.

Jodi A. Shroba, MSN, APRN, CPNP, coordinator for the Food Allergy Program at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.), said in an interview that few data are available in the literature regarding allergies to legumes other than peanut.

“It was interesting that these authors found such a high legume sensitization in their peanut-allergic patients,” Dr. Shroba, who was not involved in the study, said by email. “As more people are starting to eat plant-based diets, it is important that we better understand their allergenicity and cross-reactivity so we can better help guide patient management and education.”

Deborah Albright, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh, agreed.

“As plant-based protein consumption broadens worldwide, awareness of the potential for cross-reactivity and co-allergy amongst legumes will become increasingly important,” she said in a comment.

“However, positive allergy tests do not reliably correlate with true food allergy; therefore, the diagnosis of legume co-allergy should be confirmed by the individual patient’s history, a formal food challenge, or both,” advised Dr. Albright. She was not involved in the study.

“Cross-sensitization to other legumes in patients with a single legume allergy is common; however, true clinical reactivity is often not present,” she added. “Also, legume allergy test sensitization rates and objective reactivity on food challenge can vary by region, depending on diet and pollen aeroallergen exposure.

“Systematic exploration of tolerance versus co-allergy to other legumes should be considered in patients allergic to peanut or other legumes,” Dr. Albright said.

The authors recommend further research and registry data collection of legume anaphylaxis.

Details regarding funding for the study were not provided. The authors, Dr. Shroba, and Dr. Albright report no relevant financial relationships.

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

French children with peanut allergy tend to have reactions to other legumes, including soy, lentil, pea, bean, lupin, and fenugreek, and those other allergies often lead to anaphylactic reactions, a retrospective study reports.

“Among children allergic to peanut, at least two-thirds were sensitized to one other legume, and legume allergy was diagnosed in one-quarter of the sensitized patients,” senior study author Amandine Divaret-Chauveau, MD, of the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nancy in Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, France, and colleagues reported in Pediatric Allergy and Immunology.

People worldwide are eating more legumes these days, the authors noted. High in protein, low in unsaturated fats, with low production costs, legumes are important components of increasingly vegetarian, healthy, sustainable diets.

Food allergens are the most common childhood triggers of allergic reactions. Among children in France, legumes cause 14.6% of food-related anaphylactic reactions, with peanut as the main allergen, they added.

Dr. Divaret-Chauveau and colleagues assessed the prevalence and relevance of sensitization to legumes among all children and adolescents aged 1-17 years who had peanut allergy and had been admitted to one academic pediatric allergy department over roughly 3 years, beginning in early 2017. For the 195 study participants, peanut allergy had been confirmed, and they had been documented to have consumed or to have sensitization to at least one nonpeanut legume; 69.7% were boys.

The researchers analyzed data on consumption history, skin-prick tests, specific immunoglobulin E status, prior allergic reactions, and oral food challenges for each legume. They found the following:

Among the 195 children with peanut allergy, 98.4% had at least one other atopic disease.

Of the 195 children with peanut allergy, 122 (63.9%) were sensitized to at least one other legume. Of these 122 children, 66.3% were sensitized to fenugreek, 42.2% to lentil, 39.9% to soy, and 34.2% to lupin.

Allergy to one or more legumes was confirmed for 27.9% of the 122 sensitized children, including 4.9% who had multiple legume allergies. Lentil, lupin, and pea were the main allergens.

Of the 118 children also having a nonlegume food allergy, the main food allergens were egg (57.6%), cow’s milk (33.0%), cashew (39.0%), pistachio (23.7%), and hazelnut (30.5%).

50% of allergic reactions to nonpeanut legumes were severe, often showing as asthma. Atopic comorbidities, including asthma, in most participants may have contributed to the severity of allergic reactions, the authors noted.
 

Allergy awareness needs to grow with plant-based diets

“The high prevalence of legume sensitization reported in our study highlights the need to explore legume consumption in children with PA [peanut allergy], and the need to investigate sensitization in the absence of consumption,” they added.

Jodi A. Shroba, MSN, APRN, CPNP, coordinator for the Food Allergy Program at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.), said in an interview that few data are available in the literature regarding allergies to legumes other than peanut.

“It was interesting that these authors found such a high legume sensitization in their peanut-allergic patients,” Dr. Shroba, who was not involved in the study, said by email. “As more people are starting to eat plant-based diets, it is important that we better understand their allergenicity and cross-reactivity so we can better help guide patient management and education.”

Deborah Albright, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh, agreed.

“As plant-based protein consumption broadens worldwide, awareness of the potential for cross-reactivity and co-allergy amongst legumes will become increasingly important,” she said in a comment.

“However, positive allergy tests do not reliably correlate with true food allergy; therefore, the diagnosis of legume co-allergy should be confirmed by the individual patient’s history, a formal food challenge, or both,” advised Dr. Albright. She was not involved in the study.

“Cross-sensitization to other legumes in patients with a single legume allergy is common; however, true clinical reactivity is often not present,” she added. “Also, legume allergy test sensitization rates and objective reactivity on food challenge can vary by region, depending on diet and pollen aeroallergen exposure.

“Systematic exploration of tolerance versus co-allergy to other legumes should be considered in patients allergic to peanut or other legumes,” Dr. Albright said.

The authors recommend further research and registry data collection of legume anaphylaxis.

Details regarding funding for the study were not provided. The authors, Dr. Shroba, and Dr. Albright report no relevant financial relationships.

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

French children with peanut allergy tend to have reactions to other legumes, including soy, lentil, pea, bean, lupin, and fenugreek, and those other allergies often lead to anaphylactic reactions, a retrospective study reports.

“Among children allergic to peanut, at least two-thirds were sensitized to one other legume, and legume allergy was diagnosed in one-quarter of the sensitized patients,” senior study author Amandine Divaret-Chauveau, MD, of the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nancy in Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, France, and colleagues reported in Pediatric Allergy and Immunology.

People worldwide are eating more legumes these days, the authors noted. High in protein, low in unsaturated fats, with low production costs, legumes are important components of increasingly vegetarian, healthy, sustainable diets.

Food allergens are the most common childhood triggers of allergic reactions. Among children in France, legumes cause 14.6% of food-related anaphylactic reactions, with peanut as the main allergen, they added.

Dr. Divaret-Chauveau and colleagues assessed the prevalence and relevance of sensitization to legumes among all children and adolescents aged 1-17 years who had peanut allergy and had been admitted to one academic pediatric allergy department over roughly 3 years, beginning in early 2017. For the 195 study participants, peanut allergy had been confirmed, and they had been documented to have consumed or to have sensitization to at least one nonpeanut legume; 69.7% were boys.

The researchers analyzed data on consumption history, skin-prick tests, specific immunoglobulin E status, prior allergic reactions, and oral food challenges for each legume. They found the following:

Among the 195 children with peanut allergy, 98.4% had at least one other atopic disease.

Of the 195 children with peanut allergy, 122 (63.9%) were sensitized to at least one other legume. Of these 122 children, 66.3% were sensitized to fenugreek, 42.2% to lentil, 39.9% to soy, and 34.2% to lupin.

Allergy to one or more legumes was confirmed for 27.9% of the 122 sensitized children, including 4.9% who had multiple legume allergies. Lentil, lupin, and pea were the main allergens.

Of the 118 children also having a nonlegume food allergy, the main food allergens were egg (57.6%), cow’s milk (33.0%), cashew (39.0%), pistachio (23.7%), and hazelnut (30.5%).

50% of allergic reactions to nonpeanut legumes were severe, often showing as asthma. Atopic comorbidities, including asthma, in most participants may have contributed to the severity of allergic reactions, the authors noted.
 

Allergy awareness needs to grow with plant-based diets

“The high prevalence of legume sensitization reported in our study highlights the need to explore legume consumption in children with PA [peanut allergy], and the need to investigate sensitization in the absence of consumption,” they added.

Jodi A. Shroba, MSN, APRN, CPNP, coordinator for the Food Allergy Program at Children’s Mercy Kansas City (Mo.), said in an interview that few data are available in the literature regarding allergies to legumes other than peanut.

“It was interesting that these authors found such a high legume sensitization in their peanut-allergic patients,” Dr. Shroba, who was not involved in the study, said by email. “As more people are starting to eat plant-based diets, it is important that we better understand their allergenicity and cross-reactivity so we can better help guide patient management and education.”

Deborah Albright, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Pittsburgh, agreed.

“As plant-based protein consumption broadens worldwide, awareness of the potential for cross-reactivity and co-allergy amongst legumes will become increasingly important,” she said in a comment.

“However, positive allergy tests do not reliably correlate with true food allergy; therefore, the diagnosis of legume co-allergy should be confirmed by the individual patient’s history, a formal food challenge, or both,” advised Dr. Albright. She was not involved in the study.

“Cross-sensitization to other legumes in patients with a single legume allergy is common; however, true clinical reactivity is often not present,” she added. “Also, legume allergy test sensitization rates and objective reactivity on food challenge can vary by region, depending on diet and pollen aeroallergen exposure.

“Systematic exploration of tolerance versus co-allergy to other legumes should be considered in patients allergic to peanut or other legumes,” Dr. Albright said.

The authors recommend further research and registry data collection of legume anaphylaxis.

Details regarding funding for the study were not provided. The authors, Dr. Shroba, and Dr. Albright report no relevant financial relationships.

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

A higher percentage of family physicians quit during the early months of the pandemic than the average yearly percentage that did in the prior decade, according to data from Canada.

The researchers conducted two analyses of billing claims data for family physicians practicing in Ontario. They examined data for a period from 2010 to 2019 – before the onset of the pandemic – and from 2019 through 2020. The findings were published in Annals of Family Medicine.

Overall, the proportion of family physicians who stopped working rose from an average of 1.6% each year for the period between 2010 and 2019 to 3% in the period from 2019 to 2020. The pandemic data set included 12,247 physicians in Ontario. Of these, 385 (3.1%) reported no billings in the first 6 months of the pandemic.

Compared with family physicians billing for work during the pandemic, those reporting no billings were significantly more likely to be 75 years or older (13.0% vs. 3.4%), to have patient panels of less than 500 patients (40.0% vs. 25.8%), and to be eligible for fee-for-service reimbursement (37.7% vs. 24.9%; P less than .001 for all). The family physicians who reported no billing early in the pandemic also had fewer billing days in the previous year (mean of 73 days vs. 101 days, P less than .001).

In a regression analysis, the absolute increase in the percentage of family physicians who stopped working was 0.3% per year from 2010 to 2019, but rose to 1.2% between 2019 and 2020.

Challenges to family physicians in Ontario in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic included reduced revenue, inability to keep offices fully staffed, and problems obtaining enough personal protective equipment. Such challenges may have prompted some family physicians to stop working prematurely, but more research is needed in other settings, wrote study author Tara Kiran, MD, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues.

“There were a lot of stories and suggestions that more family physicians were choosing to retire due to COVID,” Michael Green, MD, a coauthor of the paper, said in an interview. “Given the preexisting shortages we thought it would be important to see if this was true, and how big of an issue it was,” he said.

Although the absolute number of primary care physicians who stopped working is small, the implications are large given the ongoing shortage of family physicians in Canada, the researchers wrote.

The characteristics of physicians stopping work, such as older age and smaller practice size, were consistent with that of physicians preparing for retirement, the researchers noted. In addition, 56% of the family physicians who stopped working during the pandemic practiced in a patient enrollment model, in which patients are enrolled and between 15% and 70% of payment is based on age and sex. In this study, approximately 80% of physicians worked in this model. The remaining 20% operated in independent, fee-for-service practices.

“Although we cannot directly attribute causation, we hypothesize that some family physicians accelerated their retirement plans because of the pandemic,” the researchers noted. They proposed that possible reasons include health concerns, increased costs of infection prevention and control, reduced revenue from office visits, and burnout. The current study did not examine these issues.

Additional studies are needed to understand the impact on population health, the researchers concluded, but they estimated that the number of family physicians who stopped work during the pandemic would have provided care for approximately 170,000 patients.

The study findings reflect a genuine turnover by family physicians, vs. a departure from family practice to a fellowship and practice in another specialty, Dr. Green said. “We looked at physician billings to determine who stopped practicing, so we report only on those who stopped billing the Ontario Health Insurance Program altogether,” he explained.

The ongoing pandemic accelerated the issue of an upcoming wave of physician retirements and added to an already large number of people without a family physician, Dr. Green noted.

“We know there will be significant shortages of family physicians if we don’t modernize our ways of delivering primary care,” said Dr. Green. More research is needed on how to support family doctors with teams and administrative supports to allow them to provide high quality care to more patients, he said. Better models to estimate health workforce needs in primary care are needed as well, he added.

In the United States, a physician shortage has been growing since before the pandemic, according to a report published in 2021 by the Association of American Medical Colleges. In this report, “The Complexities of Physician Supply and Demand: Projections from 2019 to 2034,” the authors specifically projected a primary care physician shortage of 17,800 to 48,000 by 2034. This projection is in part based on an increase in the percentage of the U.S. population aged 65 years and older, which will increase the demand for care, according to the authors. The report also confirmed that many U.S. physicians are approaching retirement age and that more than two of five active physicians will be 65 years or older within the next 10 years.

However, the authors of this U.S. report acknowledged that the impact of the pandemic on existing primary care shortages remains unclear.

“There are still many unknowns about the direct short-term and long-term impacts of COVID-19 on the physician workforce, and it may be several years before those impacts are clearly understood,” they said in the executive summary of their report.

Alison N. Huffstetler, MD, a coauthor of a recent report that tried to identify the active primary care workforce in Virginia, said, “We know from other research that there are not enough primary care doctors, right now, to do the work that needs to be done – some citations have noted it would take a primary care doc over 20 hours a day just to provide preventive care.

“As our population continues to age, live longer, and need more complex care management, we must ensure we have an accountable, accessible, and knowledgeable primary care network to care for our communities,” she said.
 

Current state of primary care in Virginia

The study by Dr. Huffstetler, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues was published in Annals of Family Medicine. It used a novel strategy involving the analysis of state all-payer claims data to determine how many physicians were practicing primary care in Virginia.

The researchers used the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES) and the Virginia All-Payer Claims Database (VA-APCD) and identified all Virginia physicians and their specialties through the NPPES between 2015 and 2019. Active physicians were defined as those with at least one claim in the VA-APCD during the study period. They identified 20,976 active physicians in Virginia, 28.1% of whom were classified as primary care. Of these, 52% were family medicine physicians, 18.5% were internal medicine physicians, 16.8% were pediatricians, 11.8% were ob.gyns., and 0.5% were other specialists.

Clinician specialties were identified via specialty codes from the NPPES. Physicians were identified as primary care providers in two ways. The first way was by identifying those who had a National Uniform Claim Committee (NUCC) taxonomy of family medicine. The NUCC identifies a provider’s specialty using several levels of classification based on board certification and subspecialty certification data. The second identifier was having been a physician who had billed for at least 10 wellness visit codes from Jan. 1, 2019, through Dec. 31, 2019.

Over the 5-year study period (2015-2019), the counts and percentages of primary care physicians in the workforce remained stable, and the overall number of physicians in the state increased by 3.5%, the researchers noted. A total of 60.45% of all physicians and 60.87% of primary care physicians remained active, and 11.66% of all physicians had a claim in only 1 of the 5 years.
 

How distribution and access impact patients

In an interview, Dr. Huffstetler said the study she and colleagues authored “offers a transparent and reproducible process for identifying primary care physicians in a state, where they practice, and what changes in staffing occur over time.”

“In Virginia, this is particularly important, as we recently expanded Medicaid, making primary care more affordable for over 500,000 people,” she said. “We also saw the importance of distribution and accessibility to primary care over the past 3 years of COVID. In order to adequately prepare for community needs in the coming years, we must know who is providing primary care, and where they are.”

However, the model used in this study has its limitations, Dr. Huffstetler said, including the lack of a definitive definition of primary care using claims data.

“We used a data-informed wellness visit threshold, but it is likely that primary care is delivered in some locations without claims that are reflected by a wellness visit, and we hope to look at scope in the future to help refine these results,” she said.
 

Canadian study shows pandemic’s impact on patient care

“The pandemic’s impact on primary care remains palpable, and Dr. Kiran’s team has done an excellent analysis on the practice trends during the past several years,” Dr. Huffstetler said.

“The Canadian analysis uses claims in a similar manner to our study; however, it appears that they already knew who the FPs were in Ontario,” Dr. Huffstetler noted. “Their claims threshold of 50 for active practice was higher than ours, at only 1. Should those FPs have moved to a different specialty, the physicians would still have claims for the patients seen in other subspecialties. As such, I don’t suspect that their analysis miscalculated those that transitioned, rather than stopped practice,” she explained.

The Ontario study was supported by the Initial Credential Evaluation Service, which is funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care, as well as by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Additional support came from the INSPIRE Primary Health Care Research Program, which is also funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The Virginia study was supported by the Department of Medical Assistance Services and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The supply and demand report was conducted for the AAMC by IHS Markit, a global information company.

A higher percentage of family physicians quit during the early months of the pandemic than the average yearly percentage that did in the prior decade, according to data from Canada.

The researchers conducted two analyses of billing claims data for family physicians practicing in Ontario. They examined data for a period from 2010 to 2019 – before the onset of the pandemic – and from 2019 through 2020. The findings were published in Annals of Family Medicine.

Overall, the proportion of family physicians who stopped working rose from an average of 1.6% each year for the period between 2010 and 2019 to 3% in the period from 2019 to 2020. The pandemic data set included 12,247 physicians in Ontario. Of these, 385 (3.1%) reported no billings in the first 6 months of the pandemic.

Compared with family physicians billing for work during the pandemic, those reporting no billings were significantly more likely to be 75 years or older (13.0% vs. 3.4%), to have patient panels of less than 500 patients (40.0% vs. 25.8%), and to be eligible for fee-for-service reimbursement (37.7% vs. 24.9%; P less than .001 for all). The family physicians who reported no billing early in the pandemic also had fewer billing days in the previous year (mean of 73 days vs. 101 days, P less than .001).

In a regression analysis, the absolute increase in the percentage of family physicians who stopped working was 0.3% per year from 2010 to 2019, but rose to 1.2% between 2019 and 2020.

Challenges to family physicians in Ontario in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic included reduced revenue, inability to keep offices fully staffed, and problems obtaining enough personal protective equipment. Such challenges may have prompted some family physicians to stop working prematurely, but more research is needed in other settings, wrote study author Tara Kiran, MD, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues.

“There were a lot of stories and suggestions that more family physicians were choosing to retire due to COVID,” Michael Green, MD, a coauthor of the paper, said in an interview. “Given the preexisting shortages we thought it would be important to see if this was true, and how big of an issue it was,” he said.

Although the absolute number of primary care physicians who stopped working is small, the implications are large given the ongoing shortage of family physicians in Canada, the researchers wrote.

The characteristics of physicians stopping work, such as older age and smaller practice size, were consistent with that of physicians preparing for retirement, the researchers noted. In addition, 56% of the family physicians who stopped working during the pandemic practiced in a patient enrollment model, in which patients are enrolled and between 15% and 70% of payment is based on age and sex. In this study, approximately 80% of physicians worked in this model. The remaining 20% operated in independent, fee-for-service practices.

“Although we cannot directly attribute causation, we hypothesize that some family physicians accelerated their retirement plans because of the pandemic,” the researchers noted. They proposed that possible reasons include health concerns, increased costs of infection prevention and control, reduced revenue from office visits, and burnout. The current study did not examine these issues.

Additional studies are needed to understand the impact on population health, the researchers concluded, but they estimated that the number of family physicians who stopped work during the pandemic would have provided care for approximately 170,000 patients.

The study findings reflect a genuine turnover by family physicians, vs. a departure from family practice to a fellowship and practice in another specialty, Dr. Green said. “We looked at physician billings to determine who stopped practicing, so we report only on those who stopped billing the Ontario Health Insurance Program altogether,” he explained.

The ongoing pandemic accelerated the issue of an upcoming wave of physician retirements and added to an already large number of people without a family physician, Dr. Green noted.

“We know there will be significant shortages of family physicians if we don’t modernize our ways of delivering primary care,” said Dr. Green. More research is needed on how to support family doctors with teams and administrative supports to allow them to provide high quality care to more patients, he said. Better models to estimate health workforce needs in primary care are needed as well, he added.

In the United States, a physician shortage has been growing since before the pandemic, according to a report published in 2021 by the Association of American Medical Colleges. In this report, “The Complexities of Physician Supply and Demand: Projections from 2019 to 2034,” the authors specifically projected a primary care physician shortage of 17,800 to 48,000 by 2034. This projection is in part based on an increase in the percentage of the U.S. population aged 65 years and older, which will increase the demand for care, according to the authors. The report also confirmed that many U.S. physicians are approaching retirement age and that more than two of five active physicians will be 65 years or older within the next 10 years.

However, the authors of this U.S. report acknowledged that the impact of the pandemic on existing primary care shortages remains unclear.

“There are still many unknowns about the direct short-term and long-term impacts of COVID-19 on the physician workforce, and it may be several years before those impacts are clearly understood,” they said in the executive summary of their report.

Alison N. Huffstetler, MD, a coauthor of a recent report that tried to identify the active primary care workforce in Virginia, said, “We know from other research that there are not enough primary care doctors, right now, to do the work that needs to be done – some citations have noted it would take a primary care doc over 20 hours a day just to provide preventive care.

“As our population continues to age, live longer, and need more complex care management, we must ensure we have an accountable, accessible, and knowledgeable primary care network to care for our communities,” she said.
 

Current state of primary care in Virginia

The study by Dr. Huffstetler, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues was published in Annals of Family Medicine. It used a novel strategy involving the analysis of state all-payer claims data to determine how many physicians were practicing primary care in Virginia.

The researchers used the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES) and the Virginia All-Payer Claims Database (VA-APCD) and identified all Virginia physicians and their specialties through the NPPES between 2015 and 2019. Active physicians were defined as those with at least one claim in the VA-APCD during the study period. They identified 20,976 active physicians in Virginia, 28.1% of whom were classified as primary care. Of these, 52% were family medicine physicians, 18.5% were internal medicine physicians, 16.8% were pediatricians, 11.8% were ob.gyns., and 0.5% were other specialists.

Clinician specialties were identified via specialty codes from the NPPES. Physicians were identified as primary care providers in two ways. The first way was by identifying those who had a National Uniform Claim Committee (NUCC) taxonomy of family medicine. The NUCC identifies a provider’s specialty using several levels of classification based on board certification and subspecialty certification data. The second identifier was having been a physician who had billed for at least 10 wellness visit codes from Jan. 1, 2019, through Dec. 31, 2019.

Over the 5-year study period (2015-2019), the counts and percentages of primary care physicians in the workforce remained stable, and the overall number of physicians in the state increased by 3.5%, the researchers noted. A total of 60.45% of all physicians and 60.87% of primary care physicians remained active, and 11.66% of all physicians had a claim in only 1 of the 5 years.
 

How distribution and access impact patients

In an interview, Dr. Huffstetler said the study she and colleagues authored “offers a transparent and reproducible process for identifying primary care physicians in a state, where they practice, and what changes in staffing occur over time.”

“In Virginia, this is particularly important, as we recently expanded Medicaid, making primary care more affordable for over 500,000 people,” she said. “We also saw the importance of distribution and accessibility to primary care over the past 3 years of COVID. In order to adequately prepare for community needs in the coming years, we must know who is providing primary care, and where they are.”

However, the model used in this study has its limitations, Dr. Huffstetler said, including the lack of a definitive definition of primary care using claims data.

“We used a data-informed wellness visit threshold, but it is likely that primary care is delivered in some locations without claims that are reflected by a wellness visit, and we hope to look at scope in the future to help refine these results,” she said.
 

Canadian study shows pandemic’s impact on patient care

“The pandemic’s impact on primary care remains palpable, and Dr. Kiran’s team has done an excellent analysis on the practice trends during the past several years,” Dr. Huffstetler said.

“The Canadian analysis uses claims in a similar manner to our study; however, it appears that they already knew who the FPs were in Ontario,” Dr. Huffstetler noted. “Their claims threshold of 50 for active practice was higher than ours, at only 1. Should those FPs have moved to a different specialty, the physicians would still have claims for the patients seen in other subspecialties. As such, I don’t suspect that their analysis miscalculated those that transitioned, rather than stopped practice,” she explained.

The Ontario study was supported by the Initial Credential Evaluation Service, which is funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care, as well as by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Additional support came from the INSPIRE Primary Health Care Research Program, which is also funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The Virginia study was supported by the Department of Medical Assistance Services and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The supply and demand report was conducted for the AAMC by IHS Markit, a global information company.

A higher percentage of family physicians quit during the early months of the pandemic than the average yearly percentage that did in the prior decade, according to data from Canada.

The researchers conducted two analyses of billing claims data for family physicians practicing in Ontario. They examined data for a period from 2010 to 2019 – before the onset of the pandemic – and from 2019 through 2020. The findings were published in Annals of Family Medicine.

Overall, the proportion of family physicians who stopped working rose from an average of 1.6% each year for the period between 2010 and 2019 to 3% in the period from 2019 to 2020. The pandemic data set included 12,247 physicians in Ontario. Of these, 385 (3.1%) reported no billings in the first 6 months of the pandemic.

Compared with family physicians billing for work during the pandemic, those reporting no billings were significantly more likely to be 75 years or older (13.0% vs. 3.4%), to have patient panels of less than 500 patients (40.0% vs. 25.8%), and to be eligible for fee-for-service reimbursement (37.7% vs. 24.9%; P less than .001 for all). The family physicians who reported no billing early in the pandemic also had fewer billing days in the previous year (mean of 73 days vs. 101 days, P less than .001).

In a regression analysis, the absolute increase in the percentage of family physicians who stopped working was 0.3% per year from 2010 to 2019, but rose to 1.2% between 2019 and 2020.

Challenges to family physicians in Ontario in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic included reduced revenue, inability to keep offices fully staffed, and problems obtaining enough personal protective equipment. Such challenges may have prompted some family physicians to stop working prematurely, but more research is needed in other settings, wrote study author Tara Kiran, MD, of the University of Toronto, and colleagues.

“There were a lot of stories and suggestions that more family physicians were choosing to retire due to COVID,” Michael Green, MD, a coauthor of the paper, said in an interview. “Given the preexisting shortages we thought it would be important to see if this was true, and how big of an issue it was,” he said.

Although the absolute number of primary care physicians who stopped working is small, the implications are large given the ongoing shortage of family physicians in Canada, the researchers wrote.

The characteristics of physicians stopping work, such as older age and smaller practice size, were consistent with that of physicians preparing for retirement, the researchers noted. In addition, 56% of the family physicians who stopped working during the pandemic practiced in a patient enrollment model, in which patients are enrolled and between 15% and 70% of payment is based on age and sex. In this study, approximately 80% of physicians worked in this model. The remaining 20% operated in independent, fee-for-service practices.

“Although we cannot directly attribute causation, we hypothesize that some family physicians accelerated their retirement plans because of the pandemic,” the researchers noted. They proposed that possible reasons include health concerns, increased costs of infection prevention and control, reduced revenue from office visits, and burnout. The current study did not examine these issues.

Additional studies are needed to understand the impact on population health, the researchers concluded, but they estimated that the number of family physicians who stopped work during the pandemic would have provided care for approximately 170,000 patients.

The study findings reflect a genuine turnover by family physicians, vs. a departure from family practice to a fellowship and practice in another specialty, Dr. Green said. “We looked at physician billings to determine who stopped practicing, so we report only on those who stopped billing the Ontario Health Insurance Program altogether,” he explained.

The ongoing pandemic accelerated the issue of an upcoming wave of physician retirements and added to an already large number of people without a family physician, Dr. Green noted.

“We know there will be significant shortages of family physicians if we don’t modernize our ways of delivering primary care,” said Dr. Green. More research is needed on how to support family doctors with teams and administrative supports to allow them to provide high quality care to more patients, he said. Better models to estimate health workforce needs in primary care are needed as well, he added.

In the United States, a physician shortage has been growing since before the pandemic, according to a report published in 2021 by the Association of American Medical Colleges. In this report, “The Complexities of Physician Supply and Demand: Projections from 2019 to 2034,” the authors specifically projected a primary care physician shortage of 17,800 to 48,000 by 2034. This projection is in part based on an increase in the percentage of the U.S. population aged 65 years and older, which will increase the demand for care, according to the authors. The report also confirmed that many U.S. physicians are approaching retirement age and that more than two of five active physicians will be 65 years or older within the next 10 years.

However, the authors of this U.S. report acknowledged that the impact of the pandemic on existing primary care shortages remains unclear.

“There are still many unknowns about the direct short-term and long-term impacts of COVID-19 on the physician workforce, and it may be several years before those impacts are clearly understood,” they said in the executive summary of their report.

Alison N. Huffstetler, MD, a coauthor of a recent report that tried to identify the active primary care workforce in Virginia, said, “We know from other research that there are not enough primary care doctors, right now, to do the work that needs to be done – some citations have noted it would take a primary care doc over 20 hours a day just to provide preventive care.

“As our population continues to age, live longer, and need more complex care management, we must ensure we have an accountable, accessible, and knowledgeable primary care network to care for our communities,” she said.
 

Current state of primary care in Virginia

The study by Dr. Huffstetler, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues was published in Annals of Family Medicine. It used a novel strategy involving the analysis of state all-payer claims data to determine how many physicians were practicing primary care in Virginia.

The researchers used the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES) and the Virginia All-Payer Claims Database (VA-APCD) and identified all Virginia physicians and their specialties through the NPPES between 2015 and 2019. Active physicians were defined as those with at least one claim in the VA-APCD during the study period. They identified 20,976 active physicians in Virginia, 28.1% of whom were classified as primary care. Of these, 52% were family medicine physicians, 18.5% were internal medicine physicians, 16.8% were pediatricians, 11.8% were ob.gyns., and 0.5% were other specialists.

Clinician specialties were identified via specialty codes from the NPPES. Physicians were identified as primary care providers in two ways. The first way was by identifying those who had a National Uniform Claim Committee (NUCC) taxonomy of family medicine. The NUCC identifies a provider’s specialty using several levels of classification based on board certification and subspecialty certification data. The second identifier was having been a physician who had billed for at least 10 wellness visit codes from Jan. 1, 2019, through Dec. 31, 2019.

Over the 5-year study period (2015-2019), the counts and percentages of primary care physicians in the workforce remained stable, and the overall number of physicians in the state increased by 3.5%, the researchers noted. A total of 60.45% of all physicians and 60.87% of primary care physicians remained active, and 11.66% of all physicians had a claim in only 1 of the 5 years.
 

How distribution and access impact patients

In an interview, Dr. Huffstetler said the study she and colleagues authored “offers a transparent and reproducible process for identifying primary care physicians in a state, where they practice, and what changes in staffing occur over time.”

“In Virginia, this is particularly important, as we recently expanded Medicaid, making primary care more affordable for over 500,000 people,” she said. “We also saw the importance of distribution and accessibility to primary care over the past 3 years of COVID. In order to adequately prepare for community needs in the coming years, we must know who is providing primary care, and where they are.”

However, the model used in this study has its limitations, Dr. Huffstetler said, including the lack of a definitive definition of primary care using claims data.

“We used a data-informed wellness visit threshold, but it is likely that primary care is delivered in some locations without claims that are reflected by a wellness visit, and we hope to look at scope in the future to help refine these results,” she said.
 

Canadian study shows pandemic’s impact on patient care

“The pandemic’s impact on primary care remains palpable, and Dr. Kiran’s team has done an excellent analysis on the practice trends during the past several years,” Dr. Huffstetler said.

“The Canadian analysis uses claims in a similar manner to our study; however, it appears that they already knew who the FPs were in Ontario,” Dr. Huffstetler noted. “Their claims threshold of 50 for active practice was higher than ours, at only 1. Should those FPs have moved to a different specialty, the physicians would still have claims for the patients seen in other subspecialties. As such, I don’t suspect that their analysis miscalculated those that transitioned, rather than stopped practice,” she explained.

The Ontario study was supported by the Initial Credential Evaluation Service, which is funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long-Term Care, as well as by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Additional support came from the INSPIRE Primary Health Care Research Program, which is also funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The Virginia study was supported by the Department of Medical Assistance Services and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

The supply and demand report was conducted for the AAMC by IHS Markit, a global information company.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

John Whyte, MD: Welcome, everyone. I’m Dr John Whyte. I’m the chief medical officer at WebMD, and I’m joined today by Fabrice André. He is the chair of the scientific committee at the European Society for Medical Oncology, where we are today in Paris, France. Bonjour, Fabrice.

So, remind our viewers: What is ESMO? What does it do? And why is it so important?

Fabrice André, MD, PhD: First ESMO, is a scientific society – a member-based organization with around 25,000 members.

Dr. Whyte: Equivalent to ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncology) in the United States, correct?

Dr. André: It has members worldwide, from all over the world. And it aims at disseminating science, educating. The name is European, so it has some roots in Europe; but it is really a global organization for education, dissemination, and also more and more to generate frameworks for the standards of treatment and the common terminology for healthcare professionals to better care for patients.

Dr. Whyte: What are you most excited by at this conference in terms of the innovations that are being discussed?

Dr. André: Today we are at ESMO 2022 in Paris, with 28,000 people registered and the vast majority on site, and what has been the editorial line – the tagline – for the scientific committee is “understand the disease to better treat the patient.” This is extremely important; all of the educational program is built on this tagline, meaning that we need to understand what are the mechanisms of cancer progression? What are the determinants of outcomes if we want to integrate all the wealth of innovation that is coming?

So, then, what are the new things? In the Presidential Symposium, where we usually have the very new things, we will have very important presentations on the role of pollution on cancer and the biological mechanism that induces cancer. Why is it important? First, it has impact on public health. But also, it’s important because, for us, it’s raising the signal that the oncology community must start to invest in this field of prevention.

Dr. Whyte: I was at your booth, by the way, the ESMO booth here, and you have two bicycles, which impressed me. Nobody was on them, I might point out, but the focus was on prevention. But let’s also address how historically, the academic community, the scientific community hasn’t really been focused on prevention. It’s about treatment. So it’s fascinating that you’re talking about prevention, because usually we talk about precision medicine, right? We talk about checkpoint inhibitors; we talk about immunomodulators. And here you’re saying, “Hey, John, we need to understand how we prevent cancer,” which is really a misnomer in a way, because there are many different diseases. Would you agree with that?

Dr. André: I fully agree with you. But what is the premise we are trying to address here? The premise is that prevention has always been very low in the agenda of international conferences. And we think we want to give the signal that it’s really time now that clinical infrastructure, hospitals, invest in this field, create teams dedicated to prevention, new structures for prevention. Why? Because we are discovering step by step that it could be that some drugs we use for patients with cancer could also be developed in the field of prevention. And for this, we need the oncologists. So, more and more, our conviction is that it is the oncology community that will transform the field of prevention, and we need to invest now. Having said that, we have two very important abstracts on this question. The other one is about early cancer detection. But of course, we have our traditional session on immunotherapeutics, precision medicine, and all the wealth of randomized trials. And so in this field, for patients with cancer, what is the new information?

Dr. Whyte: We have this whole continuum. So you talk about prevention – how much cancer is preventable? Eighty percent? Seventy percent? What do you estimate?

Dr. André: You know, I’m also a scientist. So as a scientist, I will say that there is no limit for this question. No, the only limit is the knowledge.

Dr. Whyte: Well, there is some inherited mutation, so we do know that.

Dr. André: We can just go to the current status – what we know now – but I don’t see why we would put some limit on how much we can prevent cancer. But indeed, so far, what are the risk factors? Genetics, hereditary cancer, all habits, and we know them. It’s about tobacco, alcohol, sun, some sexual behavior, etc., that indeed account. In France, we say that around 40% of cancer could be preventable.

Dr. Whyte: More and more, we learn about the issues of gout, other inflammatory diseases; it can have an association, but then we have early screening as well. So, if we’re on this continuum, how excited are you by what’s happening with liquid biopsies, with other testing? Because if we can get a cancer instead of at 500,000 cells at the time of imaging, at 10 or 50 cells, while there are fragments, that’s revolutionary, isn’t it?

Dr. André: I fully agree with you. We will have an important trial presented during ESMO that is the first prospective trial testing the device called Galleri, a tool for early cancer detection based on ctDNA (circulating tumor DNA) analysis by methylation pattern.

Dr. Whyte: General screening of the population or a more tailored population with certain indications? Because right now, most of those have focused on a limited population or are used for patients who already have a cancer, and testing that way – you think it’s going to be broader?

Dr. André: What this trial is investigating is in participants who do not have cancer, 6,000 participants ...

Dr. Whyte: Pas de tout? No cancer at all?

Dr. André: No cancer.

Dr. Whyte: No family history?

Dr. André: They can have family history, but no detectable cancer – can ctDNA analysis detect cancer? And the answer is, indeed, there is around 1% positivity, and around 40% of them, indeed, had cancer. So why is it important? Because it’s really a landmark prospective trial that is telling us that a device based on ctDNA can detect cancer at early stage. Then, how many cancers? What percentage?

Dr. Whyte: Which type of cancer?

Dr. André: And is it going to have an impact on outcome? And for all the questions, we don’t have the answer here. But the answer we have here today is that with this device, done prospectively, you can detect some cancer that would not be detectable without symptoms.

Dr. Whyte: It’s only going to get better, too.

Dr. André: Yeah. So then the next step is improving technology, integrating this technology with other ones we already have, in order to increase the percentage of patients in which we detect cancer at an earlier stage.

Dr. Whyte: What about pancreatic cancer, cancers we can’t detect through screening? People forget that most cancers cannot be detected through screening, so we need better tools. We do know that there are inherited mutations. Those really aren’t preventable in many ways; the goal is to get them early. So then we move to treatments, and you talked about precision medicine. What excites you about what’s going on these days at ESMO right now.

Dr. André: We have many trials on precision medicine. We will have two randomized trials that investigate two new targets; one is gamma secretase inhibitor. So, it’s a first-in-class, first time we even hear about this target at a clinical conference. And the second highly expected trial is a clinical trial in patients with metastatic lung cancer, KRAS mutated, testing sotorasib, which is a KRAS inhibitor, and showing the magnitude of improvement associated with sotorasib. The trial is positive, and it improved PFS [progression-free survival] in these patients. So these are two new targets that are validated at this conference.

Then, if we go on another topic of genomics, there is a question that is extremely important: Can we define patients who present an outlier sensitivity to immunotherapeutics? There will be one trial presented in the Presidential Symposium of immunotherapeutics in patients with colon cancer and microsatellite instability (MSI), showing that a few weeks of immunotherapeutics followed by surgery can cure patients. Why is it important? It’s important because we are all facing a shortage in the healthcare workforce. We have fewer nurses, fewer doctors, and we all have issues of sustainability. So, really now is the time to think about precision medicine, how precision medicine, by identifying outlier responders, can decrease the amount of resources we need to cure a patient. And this trial on immunotherapeutics, guided by genomics, is exactly this point: 8 weeks of treatment to cure a patient.

Dr. Whyte: Do you think there’s going to be a cure for cancer 10 years from now?

Dr. André: What I’m convinced of is that, in the 10 years that are coming, we are going step by step; we’re going to continue to increase the life expectancy of patients with cancer.

Dr. Whyte: And quality of life too, right?

Dr. André: Quality of life is a major issue. We had today a keynote on digital medicine and how ePRO (electronic patient-reported outcomes) can help the patient to really decrease the burden of symptoms. Quality of life is, of course, extremely important because of the very high number of patients who are cured of cancer; we need to decrease the burden of symptom in patients.

Dr. Whyte: And even though cancer rates are going down in most areas of the world, we still globally have millions of deaths from cancer every year. And sometimes people forget that, because they hear about some of the innovations. But I want to end with this: Are we investing enough in cancer care? Because let’s be honest – there are other diseases that we also need to spend time on. Cardiovascular disease is a global burden; infectious disease is a global burden. Are governments, are industries spending enough on cancer research and development?

Dr. André: Well, we can always claim for more, no? This is how everyone is trying to be, I think. But the reality is that we are living in a world where we have limited resources. I think what is more important for me is to be sure that any euro or dollar invested in cancer research is well used and generates an impact for patients. That is the most important, I think.

Dr. Whyte: And that’s why outcomes are so important in this research.

Dr. André: My conviction is that we have the tools, meaning the knowledge, the biotechnology, to really go the next step in terms of improving outcomes for patients. And for this, we now need clinical trials and translational research, but the tools, meaning basic science, basic knowledge, biotechnology – the basement for progress is here. We need now to transform this into direct impact for the patient. But I would not like to finish by saying we need more money in the field; what we need are people who can transform one euro, one dollar into concrete and measurable advances.

Dr. Whyte: We’re going to need more time on another day because I want to ask you about diversity in clinical trials, how important that is. I want to ask you about pediatric cancers; there are a whole bunch of things that I want to talk to you about. So hopefully we’ll find more time when we’re not at a big international conference such as ESMO. So, Dr Fabrice André, I want to thank you for taking time today.

Dr. André: Thank you and have a nice day.

Dr. Whyte: Stay tuned for a future discussion with Dr André on more about where we’re going in terms of cancer research and development. Thanks for watching, everyone.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

John Whyte, MD: Welcome, everyone. I’m Dr John Whyte. I’m the chief medical officer at WebMD, and I’m joined today by Fabrice André. He is the chair of the scientific committee at the European Society for Medical Oncology, where we are today in Paris, France. Bonjour, Fabrice.

So, remind our viewers: What is ESMO? What does it do? And why is it so important?

Fabrice André, MD, PhD: First ESMO, is a scientific society – a member-based organization with around 25,000 members.

Dr. Whyte: Equivalent to ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncology) in the United States, correct?

Dr. André: It has members worldwide, from all over the world. And it aims at disseminating science, educating. The name is European, so it has some roots in Europe; but it is really a global organization for education, dissemination, and also more and more to generate frameworks for the standards of treatment and the common terminology for healthcare professionals to better care for patients.

Dr. Whyte: What are you most excited by at this conference in terms of the innovations that are being discussed?

Dr. André: Today we are at ESMO 2022 in Paris, with 28,000 people registered and the vast majority on site, and what has been the editorial line – the tagline – for the scientific committee is “understand the disease to better treat the patient.” This is extremely important; all of the educational program is built on this tagline, meaning that we need to understand what are the mechanisms of cancer progression? What are the determinants of outcomes if we want to integrate all the wealth of innovation that is coming?

So, then, what are the new things? In the Presidential Symposium, where we usually have the very new things, we will have very important presentations on the role of pollution on cancer and the biological mechanism that induces cancer. Why is it important? First, it has impact on public health. But also, it’s important because, for us, it’s raising the signal that the oncology community must start to invest in this field of prevention.

Dr. Whyte: I was at your booth, by the way, the ESMO booth here, and you have two bicycles, which impressed me. Nobody was on them, I might point out, but the focus was on prevention. But let’s also address how historically, the academic community, the scientific community hasn’t really been focused on prevention. It’s about treatment. So it’s fascinating that you’re talking about prevention, because usually we talk about precision medicine, right? We talk about checkpoint inhibitors; we talk about immunomodulators. And here you’re saying, “Hey, John, we need to understand how we prevent cancer,” which is really a misnomer in a way, because there are many different diseases. Would you agree with that?

Dr. André: I fully agree with you. But what is the premise we are trying to address here? The premise is that prevention has always been very low in the agenda of international conferences. And we think we want to give the signal that it’s really time now that clinical infrastructure, hospitals, invest in this field, create teams dedicated to prevention, new structures for prevention. Why? Because we are discovering step by step that it could be that some drugs we use for patients with cancer could also be developed in the field of prevention. And for this, we need the oncologists. So, more and more, our conviction is that it is the oncology community that will transform the field of prevention, and we need to invest now. Having said that, we have two very important abstracts on this question. The other one is about early cancer detection. But of course, we have our traditional session on immunotherapeutics, precision medicine, and all the wealth of randomized trials. And so in this field, for patients with cancer, what is the new information?

Dr. Whyte: We have this whole continuum. So you talk about prevention – how much cancer is preventable? Eighty percent? Seventy percent? What do you estimate?

Dr. André: You know, I’m also a scientist. So as a scientist, I will say that there is no limit for this question. No, the only limit is the knowledge.

Dr. Whyte: Well, there is some inherited mutation, so we do know that.

Dr. André: We can just go to the current status – what we know now – but I don’t see why we would put some limit on how much we can prevent cancer. But indeed, so far, what are the risk factors? Genetics, hereditary cancer, all habits, and we know them. It’s about tobacco, alcohol, sun, some sexual behavior, etc., that indeed account. In France, we say that around 40% of cancer could be preventable.

Dr. Whyte: More and more, we learn about the issues of gout, other inflammatory diseases; it can have an association, but then we have early screening as well. So, if we’re on this continuum, how excited are you by what’s happening with liquid biopsies, with other testing? Because if we can get a cancer instead of at 500,000 cells at the time of imaging, at 10 or 50 cells, while there are fragments, that’s revolutionary, isn’t it?

Dr. André: I fully agree with you. We will have an important trial presented during ESMO that is the first prospective trial testing the device called Galleri, a tool for early cancer detection based on ctDNA (circulating tumor DNA) analysis by methylation pattern.

Dr. Whyte: General screening of the population or a more tailored population with certain indications? Because right now, most of those have focused on a limited population or are used for patients who already have a cancer, and testing that way – you think it’s going to be broader?

Dr. André: What this trial is investigating is in participants who do not have cancer, 6,000 participants ...

Dr. Whyte: Pas de tout? No cancer at all?

Dr. André: No cancer.

Dr. Whyte: No family history?

Dr. André: They can have family history, but no detectable cancer – can ctDNA analysis detect cancer? And the answer is, indeed, there is around 1% positivity, and around 40% of them, indeed, had cancer. So why is it important? Because it’s really a landmark prospective trial that is telling us that a device based on ctDNA can detect cancer at early stage. Then, how many cancers? What percentage?

Dr. Whyte: Which type of cancer?

Dr. André: And is it going to have an impact on outcome? And for all the questions, we don’t have the answer here. But the answer we have here today is that with this device, done prospectively, you can detect some cancer that would not be detectable without symptoms.

Dr. Whyte: It’s only going to get better, too.

Dr. André: Yeah. So then the next step is improving technology, integrating this technology with other ones we already have, in order to increase the percentage of patients in which we detect cancer at an earlier stage.

Dr. Whyte: What about pancreatic cancer, cancers we can’t detect through screening? People forget that most cancers cannot be detected through screening, so we need better tools. We do know that there are inherited mutations. Those really aren’t preventable in many ways; the goal is to get them early. So then we move to treatments, and you talked about precision medicine. What excites you about what’s going on these days at ESMO right now.

Dr. André: We have many trials on precision medicine. We will have two randomized trials that investigate two new targets; one is gamma secretase inhibitor. So, it’s a first-in-class, first time we even hear about this target at a clinical conference. And the second highly expected trial is a clinical trial in patients with metastatic lung cancer, KRAS mutated, testing sotorasib, which is a KRAS inhibitor, and showing the magnitude of improvement associated with sotorasib. The trial is positive, and it improved PFS [progression-free survival] in these patients. So these are two new targets that are validated at this conference.

Then, if we go on another topic of genomics, there is a question that is extremely important: Can we define patients who present an outlier sensitivity to immunotherapeutics? There will be one trial presented in the Presidential Symposium of immunotherapeutics in patients with colon cancer and microsatellite instability (MSI), showing that a few weeks of immunotherapeutics followed by surgery can cure patients. Why is it important? It’s important because we are all facing a shortage in the healthcare workforce. We have fewer nurses, fewer doctors, and we all have issues of sustainability. So, really now is the time to think about precision medicine, how precision medicine, by identifying outlier responders, can decrease the amount of resources we need to cure a patient. And this trial on immunotherapeutics, guided by genomics, is exactly this point: 8 weeks of treatment to cure a patient.

Dr. Whyte: Do you think there’s going to be a cure for cancer 10 years from now?

Dr. André: What I’m convinced of is that, in the 10 years that are coming, we are going step by step; we’re going to continue to increase the life expectancy of patients with cancer.

Dr. Whyte: And quality of life too, right?

Dr. André: Quality of life is a major issue. We had today a keynote on digital medicine and how ePRO (electronic patient-reported outcomes) can help the patient to really decrease the burden of symptoms. Quality of life is, of course, extremely important because of the very high number of patients who are cured of cancer; we need to decrease the burden of symptom in patients.

Dr. Whyte: And even though cancer rates are going down in most areas of the world, we still globally have millions of deaths from cancer every year. And sometimes people forget that, because they hear about some of the innovations. But I want to end with this: Are we investing enough in cancer care? Because let’s be honest – there are other diseases that we also need to spend time on. Cardiovascular disease is a global burden; infectious disease is a global burden. Are governments, are industries spending enough on cancer research and development?

Dr. André: Well, we can always claim for more, no? This is how everyone is trying to be, I think. But the reality is that we are living in a world where we have limited resources. I think what is more important for me is to be sure that any euro or dollar invested in cancer research is well used and generates an impact for patients. That is the most important, I think.

Dr. Whyte: And that’s why outcomes are so important in this research.

Dr. André: My conviction is that we have the tools, meaning the knowledge, the biotechnology, to really go the next step in terms of improving outcomes for patients. And for this, we now need clinical trials and translational research, but the tools, meaning basic science, basic knowledge, biotechnology – the basement for progress is here. We need now to transform this into direct impact for the patient. But I would not like to finish by saying we need more money in the field; what we need are people who can transform one euro, one dollar into concrete and measurable advances.

Dr. Whyte: We’re going to need more time on another day because I want to ask you about diversity in clinical trials, how important that is. I want to ask you about pediatric cancers; there are a whole bunch of things that I want to talk to you about. So hopefully we’ll find more time when we’re not at a big international conference such as ESMO. So, Dr Fabrice André, I want to thank you for taking time today.

Dr. André: Thank you and have a nice day.

Dr. Whyte: Stay tuned for a future discussion with Dr André on more about where we’re going in terms of cancer research and development. Thanks for watching, everyone.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

John Whyte, MD: Welcome, everyone. I’m Dr John Whyte. I’m the chief medical officer at WebMD, and I’m joined today by Fabrice André. He is the chair of the scientific committee at the European Society for Medical Oncology, where we are today in Paris, France. Bonjour, Fabrice.

So, remind our viewers: What is ESMO? What does it do? And why is it so important?

Fabrice André, MD, PhD: First ESMO, is a scientific society – a member-based organization with around 25,000 members.

Dr. Whyte: Equivalent to ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncology) in the United States, correct?

Dr. André: It has members worldwide, from all over the world. And it aims at disseminating science, educating. The name is European, so it has some roots in Europe; but it is really a global organization for education, dissemination, and also more and more to generate frameworks for the standards of treatment and the common terminology for healthcare professionals to better care for patients.

Dr. Whyte: What are you most excited by at this conference in terms of the innovations that are being discussed?

Dr. André: Today we are at ESMO 2022 in Paris, with 28,000 people registered and the vast majority on site, and what has been the editorial line – the tagline – for the scientific committee is “understand the disease to better treat the patient.” This is extremely important; all of the educational program is built on this tagline, meaning that we need to understand what are the mechanisms of cancer progression? What are the determinants of outcomes if we want to integrate all the wealth of innovation that is coming?

So, then, what are the new things? In the Presidential Symposium, where we usually have the very new things, we will have very important presentations on the role of pollution on cancer and the biological mechanism that induces cancer. Why is it important? First, it has impact on public health. But also, it’s important because, for us, it’s raising the signal that the oncology community must start to invest in this field of prevention.

Dr. Whyte: I was at your booth, by the way, the ESMO booth here, and you have two bicycles, which impressed me. Nobody was on them, I might point out, but the focus was on prevention. But let’s also address how historically, the academic community, the scientific community hasn’t really been focused on prevention. It’s about treatment. So it’s fascinating that you’re talking about prevention, because usually we talk about precision medicine, right? We talk about checkpoint inhibitors; we talk about immunomodulators. And here you’re saying, “Hey, John, we need to understand how we prevent cancer,” which is really a misnomer in a way, because there are many different diseases. Would you agree with that?

Dr. André: I fully agree with you. But what is the premise we are trying to address here? The premise is that prevention has always been very low in the agenda of international conferences. And we think we want to give the signal that it’s really time now that clinical infrastructure, hospitals, invest in this field, create teams dedicated to prevention, new structures for prevention. Why? Because we are discovering step by step that it could be that some drugs we use for patients with cancer could also be developed in the field of prevention. And for this, we need the oncologists. So, more and more, our conviction is that it is the oncology community that will transform the field of prevention, and we need to invest now. Having said that, we have two very important abstracts on this question. The other one is about early cancer detection. But of course, we have our traditional session on immunotherapeutics, precision medicine, and all the wealth of randomized trials. And so in this field, for patients with cancer, what is the new information?

Dr. Whyte: We have this whole continuum. So you talk about prevention – how much cancer is preventable? Eighty percent? Seventy percent? What do you estimate?

Dr. André: You know, I’m also a scientist. So as a scientist, I will say that there is no limit for this question. No, the only limit is the knowledge.

Dr. Whyte: Well, there is some inherited mutation, so we do know that.

Dr. André: We can just go to the current status – what we know now – but I don’t see why we would put some limit on how much we can prevent cancer. But indeed, so far, what are the risk factors? Genetics, hereditary cancer, all habits, and we know them. It’s about tobacco, alcohol, sun, some sexual behavior, etc., that indeed account. In France, we say that around 40% of cancer could be preventable.

Dr. Whyte: More and more, we learn about the issues of gout, other inflammatory diseases; it can have an association, but then we have early screening as well. So, if we’re on this continuum, how excited are you by what’s happening with liquid biopsies, with other testing? Because if we can get a cancer instead of at 500,000 cells at the time of imaging, at 10 or 50 cells, while there are fragments, that’s revolutionary, isn’t it?

Dr. André: I fully agree with you. We will have an important trial presented during ESMO that is the first prospective trial testing the device called Galleri, a tool for early cancer detection based on ctDNA (circulating tumor DNA) analysis by methylation pattern.

Dr. Whyte: General screening of the population or a more tailored population with certain indications? Because right now, most of those have focused on a limited population or are used for patients who already have a cancer, and testing that way – you think it’s going to be broader?

Dr. André: What this trial is investigating is in participants who do not have cancer, 6,000 participants ...

Dr. Whyte: Pas de tout? No cancer at all?

Dr. André: No cancer.

Dr. Whyte: No family history?

Dr. André: They can have family history, but no detectable cancer – can ctDNA analysis detect cancer? And the answer is, indeed, there is around 1% positivity, and around 40% of them, indeed, had cancer. So why is it important? Because it’s really a landmark prospective trial that is telling us that a device based on ctDNA can detect cancer at early stage. Then, how many cancers? What percentage?

Dr. Whyte: Which type of cancer?

Dr. André: And is it going to have an impact on outcome? And for all the questions, we don’t have the answer here. But the answer we have here today is that with this device, done prospectively, you can detect some cancer that would not be detectable without symptoms.

Dr. Whyte: It’s only going to get better, too.

Dr. André: Yeah. So then the next step is improving technology, integrating this technology with other ones we already have, in order to increase the percentage of patients in which we detect cancer at an earlier stage.

Dr. Whyte: What about pancreatic cancer, cancers we can’t detect through screening? People forget that most cancers cannot be detected through screening, so we need better tools. We do know that there are inherited mutations. Those really aren’t preventable in many ways; the goal is to get them early. So then we move to treatments, and you talked about precision medicine. What excites you about what’s going on these days at ESMO right now.

Dr. André: We have many trials on precision medicine. We will have two randomized trials that investigate two new targets; one is gamma secretase inhibitor. So, it’s a first-in-class, first time we even hear about this target at a clinical conference. And the second highly expected trial is a clinical trial in patients with metastatic lung cancer, KRAS mutated, testing sotorasib, which is a KRAS inhibitor, and showing the magnitude of improvement associated with sotorasib. The trial is positive, and it improved PFS [progression-free survival] in these patients. So these are two new targets that are validated at this conference.

Then, if we go on another topic of genomics, there is a question that is extremely important: Can we define patients who present an outlier sensitivity to immunotherapeutics? There will be one trial presented in the Presidential Symposium of immunotherapeutics in patients with colon cancer and microsatellite instability (MSI), showing that a few weeks of immunotherapeutics followed by surgery can cure patients. Why is it important? It’s important because we are all facing a shortage in the healthcare workforce. We have fewer nurses, fewer doctors, and we all have issues of sustainability. So, really now is the time to think about precision medicine, how precision medicine, by identifying outlier responders, can decrease the amount of resources we need to cure a patient. And this trial on immunotherapeutics, guided by genomics, is exactly this point: 8 weeks of treatment to cure a patient.

Dr. Whyte: Do you think there’s going to be a cure for cancer 10 years from now?

Dr. André: What I’m convinced of is that, in the 10 years that are coming, we are going step by step; we’re going to continue to increase the life expectancy of patients with cancer.

Dr. Whyte: And quality of life too, right?

Dr. André: Quality of life is a major issue. We had today a keynote on digital medicine and how ePRO (electronic patient-reported outcomes) can help the patient to really decrease the burden of symptoms. Quality of life is, of course, extremely important because of the very high number of patients who are cured of cancer; we need to decrease the burden of symptom in patients.

Dr. Whyte: And even though cancer rates are going down in most areas of the world, we still globally have millions of deaths from cancer every year. And sometimes people forget that, because they hear about some of the innovations. But I want to end with this: Are we investing enough in cancer care? Because let’s be honest – there are other diseases that we also need to spend time on. Cardiovascular disease is a global burden; infectious disease is a global burden. Are governments, are industries spending enough on cancer research and development?

Dr. André: Well, we can always claim for more, no? This is how everyone is trying to be, I think. But the reality is that we are living in a world where we have limited resources. I think what is more important for me is to be sure that any euro or dollar invested in cancer research is well used and generates an impact for patients. That is the most important, I think.

Dr. Whyte: And that’s why outcomes are so important in this research.

Dr. André: My conviction is that we have the tools, meaning the knowledge, the biotechnology, to really go the next step in terms of improving outcomes for patients. And for this, we now need clinical trials and translational research, but the tools, meaning basic science, basic knowledge, biotechnology – the basement for progress is here. We need now to transform this into direct impact for the patient. But I would not like to finish by saying we need more money in the field; what we need are people who can transform one euro, one dollar into concrete and measurable advances.

Dr. Whyte: We’re going to need more time on another day because I want to ask you about diversity in clinical trials, how important that is. I want to ask you about pediatric cancers; there are a whole bunch of things that I want to talk to you about. So hopefully we’ll find more time when we’re not at a big international conference such as ESMO. So, Dr Fabrice André, I want to thank you for taking time today.

Dr. André: Thank you and have a nice day.

Dr. Whyte: Stay tuned for a future discussion with Dr André on more about where we’re going in terms of cancer research and development. Thanks for watching, everyone.

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

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality risk could be detected by routine retinal scanning, according to a new study using data from the UK Biobank Eye and Vision Consortium and the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer (EPIC)–Norfolk study.

The researchers, from St. George’s University of London, Cambridge University, Kingston University, Moorfields Eye Hospital, and University College London, developed a method of artificial intelligence (AI)–enabled imaging of the retina’s vascular network that could accurately predict CVD and death, without the need for blood tests or blood pressure measurement.

The system “paves the way for a highly effective, noninvasive screening test for people at medium to high risk of circulatory disease that doesn’t have to be done in a clinic,” they said. “In the general population it could be used as a noncontact form of systemic vascular health check, to triage those at medium-high risk of circulatory mortality for further clinical risk assessment and appropriate intervention.” Optometry specialists welcomed the prospect and hailed it as “an exciting development.”
 

Retinal vessels give an accurate early indicator of CVD

The study, published online in the British Journal of Ophthalmology, was based on previous research showing that the width of retinal arterioles and venules seen on retinal imaging may provide an accurate early indicator of CVD, whereas current risk prediction frameworks aren’t always reliable in identifying people who will go on to develop or die of circulatory diseases. 

The researchers developed a fully automated AI-enabled algorithm, called Quantitative Analysis of Retinal vessels Topology and Size (QUARTZ), to assess the potential of retinal vasculature imaging plus known risk factors to predict vascular health and death. They applied QUARTZ to retinal images from 88,052 UK Biobank participants aged 40-69 years, looking specifically at the width, vessel area, and degree of tortuosity of the retinal microvasculature, to develop prediction models for stroke, heart attack, and death from circulatory disease.

They then applied these models to the retinal images of 7,411 participants, aged 48-92 years, in the EPIC-Norfolk study. They then compared the performance of QUARTZ with the widely used Framingham Risk Scores framework.

The participants in the two studies were tracked for an average of 7.7 and 9.1 years, respectively, during which time there were 327 circulatory disease deaths among 64,144 UK Biobank participants (average age, 56.8 years) and 201 circulatory deaths among 5,862 EPIC-Norfolk participants (average age, 67.6 years).
 

Vessel characteristics important predictors of CVD mortality

Results from the QUARTZ models showed that in all participants, arteriolar and venular width, venular tortuosity, and width variation were important predictors of circulatory disease death. In addition, in women, but not in men, arteriolar and venular area were separate factors that contributed to risk prediction.

Overall, the predictive models, based on age, smoking, and medical history (antihypertensive or cholesterol lowering medication, diabetes, and history of stroke or MI) as well as retinal vasculature, captured between half and two-thirds of circulatory disease deaths in those most at risk, the authors said. 

Compared with Framingham Risk Scores (FRS), the retinal vasculature (RV) models captured about 5% more cases of stroke in UK Biobank men, 8% more cases in UK Biobank women, and 3% more cases among EPIC-Norfolk men most at risk, but nearly 2% fewer cases among EPIC-Norfolk women. However, the team said that, while adding RV to FRS resulted in only marginal changes in prediction of stroke or MI, a simpler noninvasive risk score based on age, sex, smoking status, medical history, and RV “yielded comparable performance to FRS, without the need for blood sampling or BP measurement.”
 

Vasculometry low cost, noninvasive and with high street availability

They concluded: “Retinal imaging is established within clinic and hospital eye care and in optometric practices in the U.S. and U.K. AI-enabled vasculometry risk prediction is fully automated, low cost, noninvasive and has the potential for reaching a higher proportion of the population in the community because of “high street” availability and because blood sampling or sphygmomanometry are not needed.

“[Retinal vasculature] is a microvascular marker, hence offers better prediction for circulatory mortality and stroke, compared with MI, which is more macrovascular, except perhaps in women. 

“In the general population it could be used as a noncontact form of systemic vascular health check, to triage those at medium-high risk of circulatory mortality for further clinical risk assessment and appropriate intervention.”

In the United Kingdom, for example, it could be included in the primary care NHS Health Check for those aged 41-74 years, they suggested.  In addition, “high street” retinal scanning could directly feed into primary medical services and help achieve greater screening coverage for older age groups, who are likely to attend an optometric practice for visual correction, especially with the onset of presbyopia. “This would offer a novel approach to identify those at high risk of circulatory mortality, which is not currently screened for,” the team said.
 

Test could help to identify high-risk individuals

In a linked editorial, Ify Mordi, MD, and Emanuele Trucco, MD, of the University of Dundee (Scotland), said that CVD remains a significant cause of mortality and morbidity and the most common cause of death worldwide, accounting for a quarter of all U.K. deaths – and its burden is increasing. “Identification of individuals at high risk is particularly important,” they said, but current clinical risk scores to identify those at risk “are unfortunately not perfect,” so miss some of those who might benefit from preventative therapy.

“The retina is the only location that allows non-invasive direct visualisation of the vasculature, potentially providing a rich source of information.” In the new study, the measurements derived with the software tool, QUARTZ, were significantly associated with CVD, they said, with similar predictive performance to the Framingham clinical risk score.

“The results strengthen the evidence from several similar studies that the retina can be a useful and potentially disruptive source of information for CVD risk in personalised medicine.” However, a number of questions remain about how this knowledge could be integrated into clinical care, including who would conduct such a retinal screening program and who would act on the findings?

The editorial concluded: “What is now needed is for ophthalmologists, cardiologists, primary care physicians, and computer scientists to work together to design studies to determine whether using this information improves clinical outcome, and, if so, to work with regulatory bodies, scientific societies and healthcare systems to optimize clinical work flows and enable practical implementation in routine practice.”
 

‘Exciting development that could improve outcomes’

Asked to comment, Farah Topia, clinical and regulatory adviser at the Association of Optometrists, said: “This is an exciting development that could improve outcomes for many patients by enabling earlier detection of serious health risks. Patients attend optometric practice for a variety of reasons and this interaction could be used to a greater extent to help detect disease earlier. With optometrists available on every High Street, in the heart of communities, it’s an element of primary care that can be accessed quickly and easily, and optometrists are also already trained to have health and lifestyle discussion with patients.”

She added: “Retinal photographs are regularly taken when patients visit an optometrist, so being able to further enhance this process using AI is exciting.

“We look forward to seeing how this area develops and how optometrists can work together with other healthcare sectors to improve patient outcomes and ease the burden the NHS currently faces.” 

The study was funded by the Medical Research Council Population and Systems Medicine Board and the British Heart Foundation.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality risk could be detected by routine retinal scanning, according to a new study using data from the UK Biobank Eye and Vision Consortium and the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer (EPIC)–Norfolk study.

The researchers, from St. George’s University of London, Cambridge University, Kingston University, Moorfields Eye Hospital, and University College London, developed a method of artificial intelligence (AI)–enabled imaging of the retina’s vascular network that could accurately predict CVD and death, without the need for blood tests or blood pressure measurement.

The system “paves the way for a highly effective, noninvasive screening test for people at medium to high risk of circulatory disease that doesn’t have to be done in a clinic,” they said. “In the general population it could be used as a noncontact form of systemic vascular health check, to triage those at medium-high risk of circulatory mortality for further clinical risk assessment and appropriate intervention.” Optometry specialists welcomed the prospect and hailed it as “an exciting development.”
 

Retinal vessels give an accurate early indicator of CVD

The study, published online in the British Journal of Ophthalmology, was based on previous research showing that the width of retinal arterioles and venules seen on retinal imaging may provide an accurate early indicator of CVD, whereas current risk prediction frameworks aren’t always reliable in identifying people who will go on to develop or die of circulatory diseases. 

The researchers developed a fully automated AI-enabled algorithm, called Quantitative Analysis of Retinal vessels Topology and Size (QUARTZ), to assess the potential of retinal vasculature imaging plus known risk factors to predict vascular health and death. They applied QUARTZ to retinal images from 88,052 UK Biobank participants aged 40-69 years, looking specifically at the width, vessel area, and degree of tortuosity of the retinal microvasculature, to develop prediction models for stroke, heart attack, and death from circulatory disease.

They then applied these models to the retinal images of 7,411 participants, aged 48-92 years, in the EPIC-Norfolk study. They then compared the performance of QUARTZ with the widely used Framingham Risk Scores framework.

The participants in the two studies were tracked for an average of 7.7 and 9.1 years, respectively, during which time there were 327 circulatory disease deaths among 64,144 UK Biobank participants (average age, 56.8 years) and 201 circulatory deaths among 5,862 EPIC-Norfolk participants (average age, 67.6 years).
 

Vessel characteristics important predictors of CVD mortality

Results from the QUARTZ models showed that in all participants, arteriolar and venular width, venular tortuosity, and width variation were important predictors of circulatory disease death. In addition, in women, but not in men, arteriolar and venular area were separate factors that contributed to risk prediction.

Overall, the predictive models, based on age, smoking, and medical history (antihypertensive or cholesterol lowering medication, diabetes, and history of stroke or MI) as well as retinal vasculature, captured between half and two-thirds of circulatory disease deaths in those most at risk, the authors said. 

Compared with Framingham Risk Scores (FRS), the retinal vasculature (RV) models captured about 5% more cases of stroke in UK Biobank men, 8% more cases in UK Biobank women, and 3% more cases among EPIC-Norfolk men most at risk, but nearly 2% fewer cases among EPIC-Norfolk women. However, the team said that, while adding RV to FRS resulted in only marginal changes in prediction of stroke or MI, a simpler noninvasive risk score based on age, sex, smoking status, medical history, and RV “yielded comparable performance to FRS, without the need for blood sampling or BP measurement.”
 

Vasculometry low cost, noninvasive and with high street availability

They concluded: “Retinal imaging is established within clinic and hospital eye care and in optometric practices in the U.S. and U.K. AI-enabled vasculometry risk prediction is fully automated, low cost, noninvasive and has the potential for reaching a higher proportion of the population in the community because of “high street” availability and because blood sampling or sphygmomanometry are not needed.

“[Retinal vasculature] is a microvascular marker, hence offers better prediction for circulatory mortality and stroke, compared with MI, which is more macrovascular, except perhaps in women. 

“In the general population it could be used as a noncontact form of systemic vascular health check, to triage those at medium-high risk of circulatory mortality for further clinical risk assessment and appropriate intervention.”

In the United Kingdom, for example, it could be included in the primary care NHS Health Check for those aged 41-74 years, they suggested.  In addition, “high street” retinal scanning could directly feed into primary medical services and help achieve greater screening coverage for older age groups, who are likely to attend an optometric practice for visual correction, especially with the onset of presbyopia. “This would offer a novel approach to identify those at high risk of circulatory mortality, which is not currently screened for,” the team said.
 

Test could help to identify high-risk individuals

In a linked editorial, Ify Mordi, MD, and Emanuele Trucco, MD, of the University of Dundee (Scotland), said that CVD remains a significant cause of mortality and morbidity and the most common cause of death worldwide, accounting for a quarter of all U.K. deaths – and its burden is increasing. “Identification of individuals at high risk is particularly important,” they said, but current clinical risk scores to identify those at risk “are unfortunately not perfect,” so miss some of those who might benefit from preventative therapy.

“The retina is the only location that allows non-invasive direct visualisation of the vasculature, potentially providing a rich source of information.” In the new study, the measurements derived with the software tool, QUARTZ, were significantly associated with CVD, they said, with similar predictive performance to the Framingham clinical risk score.

“The results strengthen the evidence from several similar studies that the retina can be a useful and potentially disruptive source of information for CVD risk in personalised medicine.” However, a number of questions remain about how this knowledge could be integrated into clinical care, including who would conduct such a retinal screening program and who would act on the findings?

The editorial concluded: “What is now needed is for ophthalmologists, cardiologists, primary care physicians, and computer scientists to work together to design studies to determine whether using this information improves clinical outcome, and, if so, to work with regulatory bodies, scientific societies and healthcare systems to optimize clinical work flows and enable practical implementation in routine practice.”
 

‘Exciting development that could improve outcomes’

Asked to comment, Farah Topia, clinical and regulatory adviser at the Association of Optometrists, said: “This is an exciting development that could improve outcomes for many patients by enabling earlier detection of serious health risks. Patients attend optometric practice for a variety of reasons and this interaction could be used to a greater extent to help detect disease earlier. With optometrists available on every High Street, in the heart of communities, it’s an element of primary care that can be accessed quickly and easily, and optometrists are also already trained to have health and lifestyle discussion with patients.”

She added: “Retinal photographs are regularly taken when patients visit an optometrist, so being able to further enhance this process using AI is exciting.

“We look forward to seeing how this area develops and how optometrists can work together with other healthcare sectors to improve patient outcomes and ease the burden the NHS currently faces.” 

The study was funded by the Medical Research Council Population and Systems Medicine Board and the British Heart Foundation.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality risk could be detected by routine retinal scanning, according to a new study using data from the UK Biobank Eye and Vision Consortium and the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer (EPIC)–Norfolk study.

The researchers, from St. George’s University of London, Cambridge University, Kingston University, Moorfields Eye Hospital, and University College London, developed a method of artificial intelligence (AI)–enabled imaging of the retina’s vascular network that could accurately predict CVD and death, without the need for blood tests or blood pressure measurement.

The system “paves the way for a highly effective, noninvasive screening test for people at medium to high risk of circulatory disease that doesn’t have to be done in a clinic,” they said. “In the general population it could be used as a noncontact form of systemic vascular health check, to triage those at medium-high risk of circulatory mortality for further clinical risk assessment and appropriate intervention.” Optometry specialists welcomed the prospect and hailed it as “an exciting development.”
 

Retinal vessels give an accurate early indicator of CVD

The study, published online in the British Journal of Ophthalmology, was based on previous research showing that the width of retinal arterioles and venules seen on retinal imaging may provide an accurate early indicator of CVD, whereas current risk prediction frameworks aren’t always reliable in identifying people who will go on to develop or die of circulatory diseases. 

The researchers developed a fully automated AI-enabled algorithm, called Quantitative Analysis of Retinal vessels Topology and Size (QUARTZ), to assess the potential of retinal vasculature imaging plus known risk factors to predict vascular health and death. They applied QUARTZ to retinal images from 88,052 UK Biobank participants aged 40-69 years, looking specifically at the width, vessel area, and degree of tortuosity of the retinal microvasculature, to develop prediction models for stroke, heart attack, and death from circulatory disease.

They then applied these models to the retinal images of 7,411 participants, aged 48-92 years, in the EPIC-Norfolk study. They then compared the performance of QUARTZ with the widely used Framingham Risk Scores framework.

The participants in the two studies were tracked for an average of 7.7 and 9.1 years, respectively, during which time there were 327 circulatory disease deaths among 64,144 UK Biobank participants (average age, 56.8 years) and 201 circulatory deaths among 5,862 EPIC-Norfolk participants (average age, 67.6 years).
 

Vessel characteristics important predictors of CVD mortality

Results from the QUARTZ models showed that in all participants, arteriolar and venular width, venular tortuosity, and width variation were important predictors of circulatory disease death. In addition, in women, but not in men, arteriolar and venular area were separate factors that contributed to risk prediction.

Overall, the predictive models, based on age, smoking, and medical history (antihypertensive or cholesterol lowering medication, diabetes, and history of stroke or MI) as well as retinal vasculature, captured between half and two-thirds of circulatory disease deaths in those most at risk, the authors said. 

Compared with Framingham Risk Scores (FRS), the retinal vasculature (RV) models captured about 5% more cases of stroke in UK Biobank men, 8% more cases in UK Biobank women, and 3% more cases among EPIC-Norfolk men most at risk, but nearly 2% fewer cases among EPIC-Norfolk women. However, the team said that, while adding RV to FRS resulted in only marginal changes in prediction of stroke or MI, a simpler noninvasive risk score based on age, sex, smoking status, medical history, and RV “yielded comparable performance to FRS, without the need for blood sampling or BP measurement.”
 

Vasculometry low cost, noninvasive and with high street availability

They concluded: “Retinal imaging is established within clinic and hospital eye care and in optometric practices in the U.S. and U.K. AI-enabled vasculometry risk prediction is fully automated, low cost, noninvasive and has the potential for reaching a higher proportion of the population in the community because of “high street” availability and because blood sampling or sphygmomanometry are not needed.

“[Retinal vasculature] is a microvascular marker, hence offers better prediction for circulatory mortality and stroke, compared with MI, which is more macrovascular, except perhaps in women. 

“In the general population it could be used as a noncontact form of systemic vascular health check, to triage those at medium-high risk of circulatory mortality for further clinical risk assessment and appropriate intervention.”

In the United Kingdom, for example, it could be included in the primary care NHS Health Check for those aged 41-74 years, they suggested.  In addition, “high street” retinal scanning could directly feed into primary medical services and help achieve greater screening coverage for older age groups, who are likely to attend an optometric practice for visual correction, especially with the onset of presbyopia. “This would offer a novel approach to identify those at high risk of circulatory mortality, which is not currently screened for,” the team said.
 

Test could help to identify high-risk individuals

In a linked editorial, Ify Mordi, MD, and Emanuele Trucco, MD, of the University of Dundee (Scotland), said that CVD remains a significant cause of mortality and morbidity and the most common cause of death worldwide, accounting for a quarter of all U.K. deaths – and its burden is increasing. “Identification of individuals at high risk is particularly important,” they said, but current clinical risk scores to identify those at risk “are unfortunately not perfect,” so miss some of those who might benefit from preventative therapy.

“The retina is the only location that allows non-invasive direct visualisation of the vasculature, potentially providing a rich source of information.” In the new study, the measurements derived with the software tool, QUARTZ, were significantly associated with CVD, they said, with similar predictive performance to the Framingham clinical risk score.

“The results strengthen the evidence from several similar studies that the retina can be a useful and potentially disruptive source of information for CVD risk in personalised medicine.” However, a number of questions remain about how this knowledge could be integrated into clinical care, including who would conduct such a retinal screening program and who would act on the findings?

The editorial concluded: “What is now needed is for ophthalmologists, cardiologists, primary care physicians, and computer scientists to work together to design studies to determine whether using this information improves clinical outcome, and, if so, to work with regulatory bodies, scientific societies and healthcare systems to optimize clinical work flows and enable practical implementation in routine practice.”
 

‘Exciting development that could improve outcomes’

Asked to comment, Farah Topia, clinical and regulatory adviser at the Association of Optometrists, said: “This is an exciting development that could improve outcomes for many patients by enabling earlier detection of serious health risks. Patients attend optometric practice for a variety of reasons and this interaction could be used to a greater extent to help detect disease earlier. With optometrists available on every High Street, in the heart of communities, it’s an element of primary care that can be accessed quickly and easily, and optometrists are also already trained to have health and lifestyle discussion with patients.”

She added: “Retinal photographs are regularly taken when patients visit an optometrist, so being able to further enhance this process using AI is exciting.

“We look forward to seeing how this area develops and how optometrists can work together with other healthcare sectors to improve patient outcomes and ease the burden the NHS currently faces.” 

The study was funded by the Medical Research Council Population and Systems Medicine Board and the British Heart Foundation.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape UK.

Having a sore throat is becoming a dominant symptom of COVID-19 infection, with fever and loss of smell becoming less common, according to recent reports in the United Kingdom.

The shift could be a cause of concern for the fall. As the main symptoms of the coronavirus change, people could spread the virus without realizing it.

“Many people are still using the government guidelines about symptoms, which are wrong,” Tim Spector, a professor of genetic epidemiology at King’s College London, told the Independent.

Prof. Spector cofounded the COVID ZOE app, which is part of the world’s largest COVID-19 study. Throughout the pandemic, researchers have used data from the app to track changes in symptoms.

“At the moment, COVID starts in two-thirds of people with a sore throat,” he said. “Fever and loss of smell are really rare now, so many old people may not think they’ve got COVID. They’d say it’s a cold and not be tested.”

COVID-19 infections in the United Kingdom increased 14% at the end of September, according to data from the U.K.’s Office for National Statistics. More than 1.1 million people tested positive during the week ending Sept. 20, up from 927,000 cases the week before. The numbers continue to increase in England and Wales, with an uncertain trend in Northern Ireland and Scotland.

The fall wave of infections has likely arrived in the United Kingdom, Prof. Spector told the Independent. Omicron variants continue to evolve and are escaping immunity from previous infection and vaccination, which he expects to continue into the winter.

But with reduced testing and surveillance of new variants, public health experts have voiced concerns about tracking the latest variants and COVID-19 trends.

“We can only detect variants or know what’s coming by doing sequencing from PCR testing, and that’s not going on anywhere near the extent it was a year ago,” Lawrence Young, a professor of virology at the University of Warwick, Coventry, England, told the Independent.

“People are going to get various infections over the winter but won’t know what they are because free tests aren’t available,” he said. “It’s going to be a problem.” 

COVID-19 cases are also increasing across Europe, which could mark the first regional spike since the BA.5 wave, according to the latest data from the European CDC. (In the past, increases in Europe have signaled a trend to come in other regions.)

People aged 65 and older have been hit the hardest, the data shows, with cases rising 9% from the previous week. Hospitalizations remain stable for now, although 14 of 27 countries in the European region have noted an upward trend.

“Changes in population mixing following the summer break are likely to be the main driver of these increases, with no indication of changes in the distribution of circulating variants,” the European CDC said.

For now, most COVID-19 numbers are still falling in the United States, according to a weekly CDC update published Sept. 30. About 47,000 cases are being reported each day, marking a 13% decrease from the week before. Hospitalizations dropped 7%, and deaths dropped 6%.

At the same time, test positivity rose slightly last week, from 9.6% to 9.8%. Wastewater surveillance indicates that 53% of sites in the United States reported a decrease in virus levels, while 41% reported an increase last week.

The CDC encouraged people to get the updated Omicron-targeted booster shot for the fall. About 7.5 million Americans have received the updated vaccine. Half of the eligible population in the United States hasn’t received any booster dose yet.

“Bivalent boosters help restore protection that might have gone down since your last dose – and they also give extra protection for you and those around you against all lineages of the Omicron variant,” the CDC wrote. “The more people who stay up to date on vaccinations, the better chance we have of avoiding a possible surge in COVID-19 illness later this fall and winter.”

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

Having a sore throat is becoming a dominant symptom of COVID-19 infection, with fever and loss of smell becoming less common, according to recent reports in the United Kingdom.

The shift could be a cause of concern for the fall. As the main symptoms of the coronavirus change, people could spread the virus without realizing it.

“Many people are still using the government guidelines about symptoms, which are wrong,” Tim Spector, a professor of genetic epidemiology at King’s College London, told the Independent.

Prof. Spector cofounded the COVID ZOE app, which is part of the world’s largest COVID-19 study. Throughout the pandemic, researchers have used data from the app to track changes in symptoms.

“At the moment, COVID starts in two-thirds of people with a sore throat,” he said. “Fever and loss of smell are really rare now, so many old people may not think they’ve got COVID. They’d say it’s a cold and not be tested.”

COVID-19 infections in the United Kingdom increased 14% at the end of September, according to data from the U.K.’s Office for National Statistics. More than 1.1 million people tested positive during the week ending Sept. 20, up from 927,000 cases the week before. The numbers continue to increase in England and Wales, with an uncertain trend in Northern Ireland and Scotland.

The fall wave of infections has likely arrived in the United Kingdom, Prof. Spector told the Independent. Omicron variants continue to evolve and are escaping immunity from previous infection and vaccination, which he expects to continue into the winter.

But with reduced testing and surveillance of new variants, public health experts have voiced concerns about tracking the latest variants and COVID-19 trends.

“We can only detect variants or know what’s coming by doing sequencing from PCR testing, and that’s not going on anywhere near the extent it was a year ago,” Lawrence Young, a professor of virology at the University of Warwick, Coventry, England, told the Independent.

“People are going to get various infections over the winter but won’t know what they are because free tests aren’t available,” he said. “It’s going to be a problem.” 

COVID-19 cases are also increasing across Europe, which could mark the first regional spike since the BA.5 wave, according to the latest data from the European CDC. (In the past, increases in Europe have signaled a trend to come in other regions.)

People aged 65 and older have been hit the hardest, the data shows, with cases rising 9% from the previous week. Hospitalizations remain stable for now, although 14 of 27 countries in the European region have noted an upward trend.

“Changes in population mixing following the summer break are likely to be the main driver of these increases, with no indication of changes in the distribution of circulating variants,” the European CDC said.

For now, most COVID-19 numbers are still falling in the United States, according to a weekly CDC update published Sept. 30. About 47,000 cases are being reported each day, marking a 13% decrease from the week before. Hospitalizations dropped 7%, and deaths dropped 6%.

At the same time, test positivity rose slightly last week, from 9.6% to 9.8%. Wastewater surveillance indicates that 53% of sites in the United States reported a decrease in virus levels, while 41% reported an increase last week.

The CDC encouraged people to get the updated Omicron-targeted booster shot for the fall. About 7.5 million Americans have received the updated vaccine. Half of the eligible population in the United States hasn’t received any booster dose yet.

“Bivalent boosters help restore protection that might have gone down since your last dose – and they also give extra protection for you and those around you against all lineages of the Omicron variant,” the CDC wrote. “The more people who stay up to date on vaccinations, the better chance we have of avoiding a possible surge in COVID-19 illness later this fall and winter.”

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

Having a sore throat is becoming a dominant symptom of COVID-19 infection, with fever and loss of smell becoming less common, according to recent reports in the United Kingdom.

The shift could be a cause of concern for the fall. As the main symptoms of the coronavirus change, people could spread the virus without realizing it.

“Many people are still using the government guidelines about symptoms, which are wrong,” Tim Spector, a professor of genetic epidemiology at King’s College London, told the Independent.

Prof. Spector cofounded the COVID ZOE app, which is part of the world’s largest COVID-19 study. Throughout the pandemic, researchers have used data from the app to track changes in symptoms.

“At the moment, COVID starts in two-thirds of people with a sore throat,” he said. “Fever and loss of smell are really rare now, so many old people may not think they’ve got COVID. They’d say it’s a cold and not be tested.”

COVID-19 infections in the United Kingdom increased 14% at the end of September, according to data from the U.K.’s Office for National Statistics. More than 1.1 million people tested positive during the week ending Sept. 20, up from 927,000 cases the week before. The numbers continue to increase in England and Wales, with an uncertain trend in Northern Ireland and Scotland.

The fall wave of infections has likely arrived in the United Kingdom, Prof. Spector told the Independent. Omicron variants continue to evolve and are escaping immunity from previous infection and vaccination, which he expects to continue into the winter.

But with reduced testing and surveillance of new variants, public health experts have voiced concerns about tracking the latest variants and COVID-19 trends.

“We can only detect variants or know what’s coming by doing sequencing from PCR testing, and that’s not going on anywhere near the extent it was a year ago,” Lawrence Young, a professor of virology at the University of Warwick, Coventry, England, told the Independent.

“People are going to get various infections over the winter but won’t know what they are because free tests aren’t available,” he said. “It’s going to be a problem.” 

COVID-19 cases are also increasing across Europe, which could mark the first regional spike since the BA.5 wave, according to the latest data from the European CDC. (In the past, increases in Europe have signaled a trend to come in other regions.)

People aged 65 and older have been hit the hardest, the data shows, with cases rising 9% from the previous week. Hospitalizations remain stable for now, although 14 of 27 countries in the European region have noted an upward trend.

“Changes in population mixing following the summer break are likely to be the main driver of these increases, with no indication of changes in the distribution of circulating variants,” the European CDC said.

For now, most COVID-19 numbers are still falling in the United States, according to a weekly CDC update published Sept. 30. About 47,000 cases are being reported each day, marking a 13% decrease from the week before. Hospitalizations dropped 7%, and deaths dropped 6%.

At the same time, test positivity rose slightly last week, from 9.6% to 9.8%. Wastewater surveillance indicates that 53% of sites in the United States reported a decrease in virus levels, while 41% reported an increase last week.

The CDC encouraged people to get the updated Omicron-targeted booster shot for the fall. About 7.5 million Americans have received the updated vaccine. Half of the eligible population in the United States hasn’t received any booster dose yet.

“Bivalent boosters help restore protection that might have gone down since your last dose – and they also give extra protection for you and those around you against all lineages of the Omicron variant,” the CDC wrote. “The more people who stay up to date on vaccinations, the better chance we have of avoiding a possible surge in COVID-19 illness later this fall and winter.”

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

For Yuk Ming Dennis Lo, BM BCh, DPhil, a 1996 paper showing the detection of tumor DNA in blood plasma would prove a turning point.

Since the 1960s, clinicians had been searching for a way to glimpse into a fetus’ genetic makeup without disturbing the pregnancy – a fascination Dr. Lo, at the time a graduate student in the United Kingdom, shared.

But the article triggered a thought. If cancer cells could release their DNA into blood plasma, then maybe fetuses could, too. “I had the strange thought that the cancer growing in the patients is a little bit like the placenta that has implanted into the uterus,” he told The New York Times.

The answer was yes. In 1997, having returned home to Hong Kong, Dr. Lo published a seminal article showing that cell-free fetal DNA could be detected in maternal blood. 

He went on to devise methods to detect markers for Down syndrome, creating a noninvasive test that is more than 99% accurate for ruling out the disorder, along with screenings for trisomy 18 (Edwards syndrome), trisomy 13 (Patau syndrome), and other chromosome abnormalities.

With the commercial launch of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in 2011, health care centers around the world quickly embraced the technology as a safe alternative to more invasive methods, such as amniocentesis, for identifying fetal abnormalities. NIPT is now available in over 60 countries and is widely used by clinicians, according to the Lasker Foundation, which granted him the 2022 Lasker DeBakey Clinical Medical Research Award, along with a $250,000 prize.

“I am pleased that since its launch, noninvasive prenatal testing has become a standard of care,” Dr. Lo, chair of the department of chemical pathology at The Chinese University of Hong Kong, said in a video on the Lasker website. “It has also stimulated a global interest in the diagnostic applications of plasma DNA, especially in the area of cancer liquid biopsies and transplantation monitoring. I look forward to seeing these and other yet to be developed applications improving health care worldwide.” 

Dr. Lo’s work has inspired clinical advances and applications, including Rh factor assessments, innovations in cancer technology, transplantation, and beyond, according to Lasker.

Iris Krishna, MD, MPH, director of Perinatal Quality in the Emory Perinatal Center at Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, said Dr. Lo’s work has also provided opportunities to screen for other genetic disorders, such as microdeletion syndromes and single gene disorders

“As we continue to learn about the possibilities of this technology, it is imperative for the clinician to be knowledgeable of the benefits and limitations of cell-free DNA screening to be able to counsel their patients appropriately,” Dr. Krishna said.
 

A COVID clearinghouse

Lauren Gardner, PhD, professor in the department of civil and systems engineering at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, received the Lasker Bloomberg Public Service Award for her work on the Johns Hopkins’ COVID-19 dashboard, a critical tool for the dissemination of public health data in real time.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Ensheng Dong, Dr. Gardner’s graduate student, approached her about tracking cases of the emerging infection in his home country of China. Mr. Dong mined Chinese websites for early cases of COVID-19 and created online maps using the information. At Dr. Gardner’s suggestion, he expanded the database to include global data.

At the time, according to Lasker, no other institution was providing this information. The World Health Organization created summaries of daily COVID-19 counts, but the data were not as accessible. Dr. Gardner said timely and obtainable information was crucial to craft nimble and rational strategies for combating the pandemic.

“Given the amount of misinformation in circulation and the highly politicized nature of the COVID-19 public health crisis, our work enabled individuals to access the information they needed to make informed decisions to protect themselves, which was especially critical in those locations with delayed or nonexistent policies in place,” Dr. Gardner said in a statement.

Dr. Gardner said she was excited to pursue additional data-centric projects. “I am optimistic that in the future, timely public health information will become increasingly available, especially in times of crisis,” she said. “Moving forward, I am excited to build on our learnings from COVID-19 and transfer that knowledge to address other problems facing societies.”
 

New knowledge of cells, immunology, and disease

The 2022 Albert Lasker Basic Research Award honored three scientists who helped identify a family of proteins that connect cells and assist the immune system in attaching to its targets. The proteins, called integrins, are needed for cells to interact with each other to build complex structures in the body. They are also key to the process T cells undergo to recognize and attack cancer cells.

Awardees Richard O. Hynes, MA, PhD, distinguished professor of cancer research at Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Erkki Ruoslahti, MD, PhD, distinguished professor emeritus at Sanford Burnham Prebys Medical Discovery Institute, La Jolla, California; and Timothy A. Springer, PhD, professor of biological chemistry and molecular biology at Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, independently identified a cell-surface–associated protein that helps cells attach to the extracellular matrix.

“Many of the mysteries of how integrins work are only being discovered today,” Dr. Springer said in his acceptance remarks online.

The discoveries related to integrins have led to several clinical advances, including the development of drugs like the eyedrops lifitegrast, the biologic agent vedolizumab (made using integrins Springer discovered), and tirofiban, a medication used to hamper clotting in cardiovascular diseases.

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

For Yuk Ming Dennis Lo, BM BCh, DPhil, a 1996 paper showing the detection of tumor DNA in blood plasma would prove a turning point.

Since the 1960s, clinicians had been searching for a way to glimpse into a fetus’ genetic makeup without disturbing the pregnancy – a fascination Dr. Lo, at the time a graduate student in the United Kingdom, shared.

But the article triggered a thought. If cancer cells could release their DNA into blood plasma, then maybe fetuses could, too. “I had the strange thought that the cancer growing in the patients is a little bit like the placenta that has implanted into the uterus,” he told The New York Times.

The answer was yes. In 1997, having returned home to Hong Kong, Dr. Lo published a seminal article showing that cell-free fetal DNA could be detected in maternal blood. 

He went on to devise methods to detect markers for Down syndrome, creating a noninvasive test that is more than 99% accurate for ruling out the disorder, along with screenings for trisomy 18 (Edwards syndrome), trisomy 13 (Patau syndrome), and other chromosome abnormalities.

With the commercial launch of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in 2011, health care centers around the world quickly embraced the technology as a safe alternative to more invasive methods, such as amniocentesis, for identifying fetal abnormalities. NIPT is now available in over 60 countries and is widely used by clinicians, according to the Lasker Foundation, which granted him the 2022 Lasker DeBakey Clinical Medical Research Award, along with a $250,000 prize.

“I am pleased that since its launch, noninvasive prenatal testing has become a standard of care,” Dr. Lo, chair of the department of chemical pathology at The Chinese University of Hong Kong, said in a video on the Lasker website. “It has also stimulated a global interest in the diagnostic applications of plasma DNA, especially in the area of cancer liquid biopsies and transplantation monitoring. I look forward to seeing these and other yet to be developed applications improving health care worldwide.” 

Dr. Lo’s work has inspired clinical advances and applications, including Rh factor assessments, innovations in cancer technology, transplantation, and beyond, according to Lasker.

Iris Krishna, MD, MPH, director of Perinatal Quality in the Emory Perinatal Center at Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, said Dr. Lo’s work has also provided opportunities to screen for other genetic disorders, such as microdeletion syndromes and single gene disorders

“As we continue to learn about the possibilities of this technology, it is imperative for the clinician to be knowledgeable of the benefits and limitations of cell-free DNA screening to be able to counsel their patients appropriately,” Dr. Krishna said.
 

A COVID clearinghouse

Lauren Gardner, PhD, professor in the department of civil and systems engineering at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, received the Lasker Bloomberg Public Service Award for her work on the Johns Hopkins’ COVID-19 dashboard, a critical tool for the dissemination of public health data in real time.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Ensheng Dong, Dr. Gardner’s graduate student, approached her about tracking cases of the emerging infection in his home country of China. Mr. Dong mined Chinese websites for early cases of COVID-19 and created online maps using the information. At Dr. Gardner’s suggestion, he expanded the database to include global data.

At the time, according to Lasker, no other institution was providing this information. The World Health Organization created summaries of daily COVID-19 counts, but the data were not as accessible. Dr. Gardner said timely and obtainable information was crucial to craft nimble and rational strategies for combating the pandemic.

“Given the amount of misinformation in circulation and the highly politicized nature of the COVID-19 public health crisis, our work enabled individuals to access the information they needed to make informed decisions to protect themselves, which was especially critical in those locations with delayed or nonexistent policies in place,” Dr. Gardner said in a statement.

Dr. Gardner said she was excited to pursue additional data-centric projects. “I am optimistic that in the future, timely public health information will become increasingly available, especially in times of crisis,” she said. “Moving forward, I am excited to build on our learnings from COVID-19 and transfer that knowledge to address other problems facing societies.”
 

New knowledge of cells, immunology, and disease

The 2022 Albert Lasker Basic Research Award honored three scientists who helped identify a family of proteins that connect cells and assist the immune system in attaching to its targets. The proteins, called integrins, are needed for cells to interact with each other to build complex structures in the body. They are also key to the process T cells undergo to recognize and attack cancer cells.

Awardees Richard O. Hynes, MA, PhD, distinguished professor of cancer research at Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Erkki Ruoslahti, MD, PhD, distinguished professor emeritus at Sanford Burnham Prebys Medical Discovery Institute, La Jolla, California; and Timothy A. Springer, PhD, professor of biological chemistry and molecular biology at Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, independently identified a cell-surface–associated protein that helps cells attach to the extracellular matrix.

“Many of the mysteries of how integrins work are only being discovered today,” Dr. Springer said in his acceptance remarks online.

The discoveries related to integrins have led to several clinical advances, including the development of drugs like the eyedrops lifitegrast, the biologic agent vedolizumab (made using integrins Springer discovered), and tirofiban, a medication used to hamper clotting in cardiovascular diseases.

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

For Yuk Ming Dennis Lo, BM BCh, DPhil, a 1996 paper showing the detection of tumor DNA in blood plasma would prove a turning point.

Since the 1960s, clinicians had been searching for a way to glimpse into a fetus’ genetic makeup without disturbing the pregnancy – a fascination Dr. Lo, at the time a graduate student in the United Kingdom, shared.

But the article triggered a thought. If cancer cells could release their DNA into blood plasma, then maybe fetuses could, too. “I had the strange thought that the cancer growing in the patients is a little bit like the placenta that has implanted into the uterus,” he told The New York Times.

The answer was yes. In 1997, having returned home to Hong Kong, Dr. Lo published a seminal article showing that cell-free fetal DNA could be detected in maternal blood. 

He went on to devise methods to detect markers for Down syndrome, creating a noninvasive test that is more than 99% accurate for ruling out the disorder, along with screenings for trisomy 18 (Edwards syndrome), trisomy 13 (Patau syndrome), and other chromosome abnormalities.

With the commercial launch of noninvasive prenatal testing (NIPT) in 2011, health care centers around the world quickly embraced the technology as a safe alternative to more invasive methods, such as amniocentesis, for identifying fetal abnormalities. NIPT is now available in over 60 countries and is widely used by clinicians, according to the Lasker Foundation, which granted him the 2022 Lasker DeBakey Clinical Medical Research Award, along with a $250,000 prize.

“I am pleased that since its launch, noninvasive prenatal testing has become a standard of care,” Dr. Lo, chair of the department of chemical pathology at The Chinese University of Hong Kong, said in a video on the Lasker website. “It has also stimulated a global interest in the diagnostic applications of plasma DNA, especially in the area of cancer liquid biopsies and transplantation monitoring. I look forward to seeing these and other yet to be developed applications improving health care worldwide.” 

Dr. Lo’s work has inspired clinical advances and applications, including Rh factor assessments, innovations in cancer technology, transplantation, and beyond, according to Lasker.

Iris Krishna, MD, MPH, director of Perinatal Quality in the Emory Perinatal Center at Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, said Dr. Lo’s work has also provided opportunities to screen for other genetic disorders, such as microdeletion syndromes and single gene disorders

“As we continue to learn about the possibilities of this technology, it is imperative for the clinician to be knowledgeable of the benefits and limitations of cell-free DNA screening to be able to counsel their patients appropriately,” Dr. Krishna said.
 

A COVID clearinghouse

Lauren Gardner, PhD, professor in the department of civil and systems engineering at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, received the Lasker Bloomberg Public Service Award for her work on the Johns Hopkins’ COVID-19 dashboard, a critical tool for the dissemination of public health data in real time.

According to the Los Angeles Times, Ensheng Dong, Dr. Gardner’s graduate student, approached her about tracking cases of the emerging infection in his home country of China. Mr. Dong mined Chinese websites for early cases of COVID-19 and created online maps using the information. At Dr. Gardner’s suggestion, he expanded the database to include global data.

At the time, according to Lasker, no other institution was providing this information. The World Health Organization created summaries of daily COVID-19 counts, but the data were not as accessible. Dr. Gardner said timely and obtainable information was crucial to craft nimble and rational strategies for combating the pandemic.

“Given the amount of misinformation in circulation and the highly politicized nature of the COVID-19 public health crisis, our work enabled individuals to access the information they needed to make informed decisions to protect themselves, which was especially critical in those locations with delayed or nonexistent policies in place,” Dr. Gardner said in a statement.

Dr. Gardner said she was excited to pursue additional data-centric projects. “I am optimistic that in the future, timely public health information will become increasingly available, especially in times of crisis,” she said. “Moving forward, I am excited to build on our learnings from COVID-19 and transfer that knowledge to address other problems facing societies.”
 

New knowledge of cells, immunology, and disease

The 2022 Albert Lasker Basic Research Award honored three scientists who helped identify a family of proteins that connect cells and assist the immune system in attaching to its targets. The proteins, called integrins, are needed for cells to interact with each other to build complex structures in the body. They are also key to the process T cells undergo to recognize and attack cancer cells.

Awardees Richard O. Hynes, MA, PhD, distinguished professor of cancer research at Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Erkki Ruoslahti, MD, PhD, distinguished professor emeritus at Sanford Burnham Prebys Medical Discovery Institute, La Jolla, California; and Timothy A. Springer, PhD, professor of biological chemistry and molecular biology at Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, independently identified a cell-surface–associated protein that helps cells attach to the extracellular matrix.

“Many of the mysteries of how integrins work are only being discovered today,” Dr. Springer said in his acceptance remarks online.

The discoveries related to integrins have led to several clinical advances, including the development of drugs like the eyedrops lifitegrast, the biologic agent vedolizumab (made using integrins Springer discovered), and tirofiban, a medication used to hamper clotting in cardiovascular diseases.

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

Daniel Freedman, DO, a pediatric neurologist in Austin, Tex., remembers being flabbergasted when a surgeon threw an instrument across the room in medical school.

“I remember thinking, ‘I can’t believe people actually do this, a grown man in his 50s having a temper tantrum,’” Dr. Freedman said in an interview. But it certainly wasn’t the last time he witnessed bad behavior by one of his peers.

The results of Medscape’s recent report, Physicians Behaving Badly: Stress and Hardship Trigger Misconduct, suggest he has plenty of company. More than 4 in 10 respondents (41%) observed inappropriate behavior in the workplace in 2022, an uptick from 35% in 2021, according to the report, which polled more than 1,500 physicians about inappropriate behavior on and off the clock.

Of course, 38% of respondents have not seen any instances of misbehavior; and many of the instances that were seen were mild or infrequent. Additionally, instances of bad behavior have declined significantly over the past 5 years.

Dr. Freedman said he learned a lesson from his mentor and program director during training that has stuck with him throughout his career. “If you couldn’t act that way at any job, whether at McDonald’s or any other possible place, you shouldn’t act that way in medicine.” But he recognizes one limitation of that advice. “A lot of the people that behave badly may not have ever worked in a different environment before,” he said.

“They only perceive that they’re at the top of the food chain, so they can behave badly without repercussions.”

What Dr. Freedman described is formally called disruptive physician behavior, one of several categories of inappropriate behavior in medicine, according to Charles Samenow, MD, MPH, an associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University, Washington, who has studied this phenomenon for years.

“Disruptive physician behavior compromises the safety of the workplace,” Dr. Samenow explained. The behavior can occur at work, outside of work, or on social media. It can hinder operations, threaten patient and staff safety, and affect workplace morale.

“The question is trying to understand where that bad behavior is coming from and the impact of that bad behavior,” Dr. Samenow said in an interview.

One reason is fairly simple: doctors are human, and humans have a wide range of behavior. Plus, as the Medscape survey showed, the tension, stress, dangerous conditions during COVID, burnout, and other problems have made many physicians tired, frustrated, depressed, and more reactive to situations around them.
 

Self-selecting traits become an Achilles heel

“Any human put in a position of power over other humans has the potential to be disruptive, harass, etc, if they have certain personality traits,” said David Gorski, MD, a professor of surgery at Wayne State University, Detroit. That jibes with Dr. Samenow’s research.

Classic disruptive behavior isn’t usually associated with depression, mania, psychosis, or similar characteristics, Dr. Samenow explained. Rather, it tends to be personality driven. “Physicians are not immune to the normal problems every human being faces,” he said.

In the Medscape report, physicians cited personal arrogance as one of the leading reasons physicians engaged in inappropriate behavior (56%), followed closely by personal problems outside of work (52%), a social shift in accepting more casual behavior (50%), and job-related stress (46%). (Respondents could choose more than one answer).

One factor contributing to misbehavior that Dr. Samenow has consistently identified in his research is a history of adverse childhood experiences or family dysfunction: People who grew up in homes with physical or verbal abuse learned anger as a coping skill instead of positive, assertive communication. It’s likely that some physicians, as well as the overall population, learned anger as a coping skill for that reason.
 

How to help avert disruptive behavior in medical settings

Dr. Samenow said that coaching is a “wonderful tool” in teaching the interpersonal skills that medical school often doesn’t address.

In some case, interventions can be very helpful. For example, programs that teach effective communication strategies and teamwork through a combination of culturally sensitive dialectical and cognitive-behavioral therapy and other modalities have been successful, Dr. Samenow said. Although they are more about treating an illness than addressing “misbehavior,” programs for substance use that have been developed by and for doctors are very effective, too.

Fewer resources are available, however, for addressing racism, classism, misogyny, and other forms of bigotry, Dr. Samenow noted. “There’s implicit bias training, but not at the level of what exists for disruptive physicians and those with addiction. “That’s an area we need to work on.” Racist language was the third most commonly observed bad behavior cited in the Medscape survey, behind only bullying of staff and mocking or disparaging of patients. It was reported frequently outside of work as well.

The Medscape report found an increase in observed behavior at work and on social media, although it’s hard to determine prevalence trends over time, Dr. Samenow said. “The tolerance for this behavior has really gone down,” likely leading to more reporting, he said, and more systems for reporting bad behavior exist today than in the past.

However, Dr. Freedman said inadequate regulation, disciplinary action, and follow-through remain a problem.

“There are lots of limitations to our reporting system and to our follow-through with those reports,” including hospitals that, whether for fear of litigation or other reasons, allow physicians to quietly resign and move to another institution, even with positive recommendations, Dr. Freedman said.

Indeed, only a third of observed misbehavior in the Medscape report resulted in disciplinary action. Half the respondents believed a verbal warning was a necessary consequence, followed by a conversation from management and being reported to a supervisor or human resources. Though only 10% thought a report to the medical board was warranted, it likely depends on the offense and its frequency.

“I think going from paternalism to more patient-centered care and having patients involved in those conversations is a nice shift that makes doctors more human and relatable, and hopefully makes the public more forgiving, that we’re going to make mistakes and nobody’s perfect,” Freedman said. But he added that physicians should be held accountable when a mistake or two becomes a pattern.
 

Misinformation is professional misconduct

Sufficient accountability is especially absent, these doctors said, for a subset of professional misconduct: spreading misinformation.

While more “conventional” bad behaviors include fraud, dishonesty, abuse of underlings, and incompetence, bad behavior should also include “selling quackery and antivaccine misinformation, the way some doctors did with various nostrums for COVID-19,” said Dr. Gorski, who frequently blogs about doctors’ spreading misinformation.

Taylor Nichols, MD, an emergency medicine physician based in Sacramento, cites the desire for attention and clout as motivations. “Saying things that are wildly, provably false is professional misconduct,” Nichols said. He distinguished such statements from scientific, academic, or clinical disagreement that is necessary within medicine.

Yet there’s been a “long tradition of looking the other way or letting people with fancy titles get away with saying nonsense just because they’re respected,” Jonathan Howard, MD, an associate professor of psychiatry and neurology at New York University said in an interview.

“We have a duty to be trusted members of the community,” Dr. Howard said. “People listen when we say things, and we have an obligation to try to be accurate and humble and as honest as possible and admit mistakes when we inevitably make them.”

That extends to social media, which Dr. Nichols said has magnified the problem of promoting quackery and misinformation. He thinks medical boards and professional credentialing bodies should pay attention to what’s happening in the public conversation and understand that our professional responsibility extends beyond the walls of the hospital or clinic. Physicians must represent themselves professionally and uphold the standards that the profession expects.

On the one hand, Medscape respondents agreed: 70% said one doctor’s misbehavior taints the whole profession. Yet, at the same time, 58% of respondents believed physicians should be able to “keep their private lives private” in 2022. But that’s not the reality of the profession when the lines between private life and behavior away from work get blurred, Dr. Samenow said.

“The way a physician behaves in public represents you,” he said. “What happens in Vegas doesn’t always stay in Vegas.”

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

Daniel Freedman, DO, a pediatric neurologist in Austin, Tex., remembers being flabbergasted when a surgeon threw an instrument across the room in medical school.

“I remember thinking, ‘I can’t believe people actually do this, a grown man in his 50s having a temper tantrum,’” Dr. Freedman said in an interview. But it certainly wasn’t the last time he witnessed bad behavior by one of his peers.

The results of Medscape’s recent report, Physicians Behaving Badly: Stress and Hardship Trigger Misconduct, suggest he has plenty of company. More than 4 in 10 respondents (41%) observed inappropriate behavior in the workplace in 2022, an uptick from 35% in 2021, according to the report, which polled more than 1,500 physicians about inappropriate behavior on and off the clock.

Of course, 38% of respondents have not seen any instances of misbehavior; and many of the instances that were seen were mild or infrequent. Additionally, instances of bad behavior have declined significantly over the past 5 years.

Dr. Freedman said he learned a lesson from his mentor and program director during training that has stuck with him throughout his career. “If you couldn’t act that way at any job, whether at McDonald’s or any other possible place, you shouldn’t act that way in medicine.” But he recognizes one limitation of that advice. “A lot of the people that behave badly may not have ever worked in a different environment before,” he said.

“They only perceive that they’re at the top of the food chain, so they can behave badly without repercussions.”

What Dr. Freedman described is formally called disruptive physician behavior, one of several categories of inappropriate behavior in medicine, according to Charles Samenow, MD, MPH, an associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University, Washington, who has studied this phenomenon for years.

“Disruptive physician behavior compromises the safety of the workplace,” Dr. Samenow explained. The behavior can occur at work, outside of work, or on social media. It can hinder operations, threaten patient and staff safety, and affect workplace morale.

“The question is trying to understand where that bad behavior is coming from and the impact of that bad behavior,” Dr. Samenow said in an interview.

One reason is fairly simple: doctors are human, and humans have a wide range of behavior. Plus, as the Medscape survey showed, the tension, stress, dangerous conditions during COVID, burnout, and other problems have made many physicians tired, frustrated, depressed, and more reactive to situations around them.
 

Self-selecting traits become an Achilles heel

“Any human put in a position of power over other humans has the potential to be disruptive, harass, etc, if they have certain personality traits,” said David Gorski, MD, a professor of surgery at Wayne State University, Detroit. That jibes with Dr. Samenow’s research.

Classic disruptive behavior isn’t usually associated with depression, mania, psychosis, or similar characteristics, Dr. Samenow explained. Rather, it tends to be personality driven. “Physicians are not immune to the normal problems every human being faces,” he said.

In the Medscape report, physicians cited personal arrogance as one of the leading reasons physicians engaged in inappropriate behavior (56%), followed closely by personal problems outside of work (52%), a social shift in accepting more casual behavior (50%), and job-related stress (46%). (Respondents could choose more than one answer).

One factor contributing to misbehavior that Dr. Samenow has consistently identified in his research is a history of adverse childhood experiences or family dysfunction: People who grew up in homes with physical or verbal abuse learned anger as a coping skill instead of positive, assertive communication. It’s likely that some physicians, as well as the overall population, learned anger as a coping skill for that reason.
 

How to help avert disruptive behavior in medical settings

Dr. Samenow said that coaching is a “wonderful tool” in teaching the interpersonal skills that medical school often doesn’t address.

In some case, interventions can be very helpful. For example, programs that teach effective communication strategies and teamwork through a combination of culturally sensitive dialectical and cognitive-behavioral therapy and other modalities have been successful, Dr. Samenow said. Although they are more about treating an illness than addressing “misbehavior,” programs for substance use that have been developed by and for doctors are very effective, too.

Fewer resources are available, however, for addressing racism, classism, misogyny, and other forms of bigotry, Dr. Samenow noted. “There’s implicit bias training, but not at the level of what exists for disruptive physicians and those with addiction. “That’s an area we need to work on.” Racist language was the third most commonly observed bad behavior cited in the Medscape survey, behind only bullying of staff and mocking or disparaging of patients. It was reported frequently outside of work as well.

The Medscape report found an increase in observed behavior at work and on social media, although it’s hard to determine prevalence trends over time, Dr. Samenow said. “The tolerance for this behavior has really gone down,” likely leading to more reporting, he said, and more systems for reporting bad behavior exist today than in the past.

However, Dr. Freedman said inadequate regulation, disciplinary action, and follow-through remain a problem.

“There are lots of limitations to our reporting system and to our follow-through with those reports,” including hospitals that, whether for fear of litigation or other reasons, allow physicians to quietly resign and move to another institution, even with positive recommendations, Dr. Freedman said.

Indeed, only a third of observed misbehavior in the Medscape report resulted in disciplinary action. Half the respondents believed a verbal warning was a necessary consequence, followed by a conversation from management and being reported to a supervisor or human resources. Though only 10% thought a report to the medical board was warranted, it likely depends on the offense and its frequency.

“I think going from paternalism to more patient-centered care and having patients involved in those conversations is a nice shift that makes doctors more human and relatable, and hopefully makes the public more forgiving, that we’re going to make mistakes and nobody’s perfect,” Freedman said. But he added that physicians should be held accountable when a mistake or two becomes a pattern.
 

Misinformation is professional misconduct

Sufficient accountability is especially absent, these doctors said, for a subset of professional misconduct: spreading misinformation.

While more “conventional” bad behaviors include fraud, dishonesty, abuse of underlings, and incompetence, bad behavior should also include “selling quackery and antivaccine misinformation, the way some doctors did with various nostrums for COVID-19,” said Dr. Gorski, who frequently blogs about doctors’ spreading misinformation.

Taylor Nichols, MD, an emergency medicine physician based in Sacramento, cites the desire for attention and clout as motivations. “Saying things that are wildly, provably false is professional misconduct,” Nichols said. He distinguished such statements from scientific, academic, or clinical disagreement that is necessary within medicine.

Yet there’s been a “long tradition of looking the other way or letting people with fancy titles get away with saying nonsense just because they’re respected,” Jonathan Howard, MD, an associate professor of psychiatry and neurology at New York University said in an interview.

“We have a duty to be trusted members of the community,” Dr. Howard said. “People listen when we say things, and we have an obligation to try to be accurate and humble and as honest as possible and admit mistakes when we inevitably make them.”

That extends to social media, which Dr. Nichols said has magnified the problem of promoting quackery and misinformation. He thinks medical boards and professional credentialing bodies should pay attention to what’s happening in the public conversation and understand that our professional responsibility extends beyond the walls of the hospital or clinic. Physicians must represent themselves professionally and uphold the standards that the profession expects.

On the one hand, Medscape respondents agreed: 70% said one doctor’s misbehavior taints the whole profession. Yet, at the same time, 58% of respondents believed physicians should be able to “keep their private lives private” in 2022. But that’s not the reality of the profession when the lines between private life and behavior away from work get blurred, Dr. Samenow said.

“The way a physician behaves in public represents you,” he said. “What happens in Vegas doesn’t always stay in Vegas.”

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

Daniel Freedman, DO, a pediatric neurologist in Austin, Tex., remembers being flabbergasted when a surgeon threw an instrument across the room in medical school.

“I remember thinking, ‘I can’t believe people actually do this, a grown man in his 50s having a temper tantrum,’” Dr. Freedman said in an interview. But it certainly wasn’t the last time he witnessed bad behavior by one of his peers.

The results of Medscape’s recent report, Physicians Behaving Badly: Stress and Hardship Trigger Misconduct, suggest he has plenty of company. More than 4 in 10 respondents (41%) observed inappropriate behavior in the workplace in 2022, an uptick from 35% in 2021, according to the report, which polled more than 1,500 physicians about inappropriate behavior on and off the clock.

Of course, 38% of respondents have not seen any instances of misbehavior; and many of the instances that were seen were mild or infrequent. Additionally, instances of bad behavior have declined significantly over the past 5 years.

Dr. Freedman said he learned a lesson from his mentor and program director during training that has stuck with him throughout his career. “If you couldn’t act that way at any job, whether at McDonald’s or any other possible place, you shouldn’t act that way in medicine.” But he recognizes one limitation of that advice. “A lot of the people that behave badly may not have ever worked in a different environment before,” he said.

“They only perceive that they’re at the top of the food chain, so they can behave badly without repercussions.”

What Dr. Freedman described is formally called disruptive physician behavior, one of several categories of inappropriate behavior in medicine, according to Charles Samenow, MD, MPH, an associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University, Washington, who has studied this phenomenon for years.

“Disruptive physician behavior compromises the safety of the workplace,” Dr. Samenow explained. The behavior can occur at work, outside of work, or on social media. It can hinder operations, threaten patient and staff safety, and affect workplace morale.

“The question is trying to understand where that bad behavior is coming from and the impact of that bad behavior,” Dr. Samenow said in an interview.

One reason is fairly simple: doctors are human, and humans have a wide range of behavior. Plus, as the Medscape survey showed, the tension, stress, dangerous conditions during COVID, burnout, and other problems have made many physicians tired, frustrated, depressed, and more reactive to situations around them.
 

Self-selecting traits become an Achilles heel

“Any human put in a position of power over other humans has the potential to be disruptive, harass, etc, if they have certain personality traits,” said David Gorski, MD, a professor of surgery at Wayne State University, Detroit. That jibes with Dr. Samenow’s research.

Classic disruptive behavior isn’t usually associated with depression, mania, psychosis, or similar characteristics, Dr. Samenow explained. Rather, it tends to be personality driven. “Physicians are not immune to the normal problems every human being faces,” he said.

In the Medscape report, physicians cited personal arrogance as one of the leading reasons physicians engaged in inappropriate behavior (56%), followed closely by personal problems outside of work (52%), a social shift in accepting more casual behavior (50%), and job-related stress (46%). (Respondents could choose more than one answer).

One factor contributing to misbehavior that Dr. Samenow has consistently identified in his research is a history of adverse childhood experiences or family dysfunction: People who grew up in homes with physical or verbal abuse learned anger as a coping skill instead of positive, assertive communication. It’s likely that some physicians, as well as the overall population, learned anger as a coping skill for that reason.
 

How to help avert disruptive behavior in medical settings

Dr. Samenow said that coaching is a “wonderful tool” in teaching the interpersonal skills that medical school often doesn’t address.

In some case, interventions can be very helpful. For example, programs that teach effective communication strategies and teamwork through a combination of culturally sensitive dialectical and cognitive-behavioral therapy and other modalities have been successful, Dr. Samenow said. Although they are more about treating an illness than addressing “misbehavior,” programs for substance use that have been developed by and for doctors are very effective, too.

Fewer resources are available, however, for addressing racism, classism, misogyny, and other forms of bigotry, Dr. Samenow noted. “There’s implicit bias training, but not at the level of what exists for disruptive physicians and those with addiction. “That’s an area we need to work on.” Racist language was the third most commonly observed bad behavior cited in the Medscape survey, behind only bullying of staff and mocking or disparaging of patients. It was reported frequently outside of work as well.

The Medscape report found an increase in observed behavior at work and on social media, although it’s hard to determine prevalence trends over time, Dr. Samenow said. “The tolerance for this behavior has really gone down,” likely leading to more reporting, he said, and more systems for reporting bad behavior exist today than in the past.

However, Dr. Freedman said inadequate regulation, disciplinary action, and follow-through remain a problem.

“There are lots of limitations to our reporting system and to our follow-through with those reports,” including hospitals that, whether for fear of litigation or other reasons, allow physicians to quietly resign and move to another institution, even with positive recommendations, Dr. Freedman said.

Indeed, only a third of observed misbehavior in the Medscape report resulted in disciplinary action. Half the respondents believed a verbal warning was a necessary consequence, followed by a conversation from management and being reported to a supervisor or human resources. Though only 10% thought a report to the medical board was warranted, it likely depends on the offense and its frequency.

“I think going from paternalism to more patient-centered care and having patients involved in those conversations is a nice shift that makes doctors more human and relatable, and hopefully makes the public more forgiving, that we’re going to make mistakes and nobody’s perfect,” Freedman said. But he added that physicians should be held accountable when a mistake or two becomes a pattern.
 

Misinformation is professional misconduct

Sufficient accountability is especially absent, these doctors said, for a subset of professional misconduct: spreading misinformation.

While more “conventional” bad behaviors include fraud, dishonesty, abuse of underlings, and incompetence, bad behavior should also include “selling quackery and antivaccine misinformation, the way some doctors did with various nostrums for COVID-19,” said Dr. Gorski, who frequently blogs about doctors’ spreading misinformation.

Taylor Nichols, MD, an emergency medicine physician based in Sacramento, cites the desire for attention and clout as motivations. “Saying things that are wildly, provably false is professional misconduct,” Nichols said. He distinguished such statements from scientific, academic, or clinical disagreement that is necessary within medicine.

Yet there’s been a “long tradition of looking the other way or letting people with fancy titles get away with saying nonsense just because they’re respected,” Jonathan Howard, MD, an associate professor of psychiatry and neurology at New York University said in an interview.

“We have a duty to be trusted members of the community,” Dr. Howard said. “People listen when we say things, and we have an obligation to try to be accurate and humble and as honest as possible and admit mistakes when we inevitably make them.”

That extends to social media, which Dr. Nichols said has magnified the problem of promoting quackery and misinformation. He thinks medical boards and professional credentialing bodies should pay attention to what’s happening in the public conversation and understand that our professional responsibility extends beyond the walls of the hospital or clinic. Physicians must represent themselves professionally and uphold the standards that the profession expects.

On the one hand, Medscape respondents agreed: 70% said one doctor’s misbehavior taints the whole profession. Yet, at the same time, 58% of respondents believed physicians should be able to “keep their private lives private” in 2022. But that’s not the reality of the profession when the lines between private life and behavior away from work get blurred, Dr. Samenow said.

“The way a physician behaves in public represents you,” he said. “What happens in Vegas doesn’t always stay in Vegas.”

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