Diversity in Medicine

NEW ORLEANS – Among individuals who were surveyed at a health fair, most of whom were persons of color, 57% self-reported having sensitive skin.

Respondents also reported high rates of reactions to skin care products marketed for sensitive skin, and most said they had visited a dermatologist about their condition.

Those are among the key findings of a pilot study designed to assess the prevalence, symptom burden, and behaviors of self-identified persons of color with sensitive skin, which senior author Adam Friedman, MD, and colleagues defined as a subjective syndrome of cutaneous hyperreactivity to otherwise innocuous stimuli. “Improved understanding of sensitive skin is essential, and we encourage additional research into pathophysiology and creating a consensus definition for sensitive skin,” Dr. Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview in advance of the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, where the study was presented during an e-poster session. The findings were also reported online in JAAD International.

In May of 2022, Dr. Friedman, first author Erika McCormick, a 4th-year medical student at George Washington University, and colleagues invited individuals attending a community health fair in an undeserved area of Washington, to complete the Sensitive Scale-10 (SS-10) and to answer other questions after receiving a brief education about sensitive skin. Of the 58 respondents, 78% were female, and 86% self-identified as a person of color.

“Our study population predominantly self-identified as Black, which only represents one piece of those who would be characterized as persons of color,” Dr. Friedman said. “That said, improved representation of both our study population, and furthermore persons of color, in all aspects of dermatology research is crucial to at a minimum ensure generalizability of findings to the U.S. population, and research on sensitive skin is but one component of this.”

Nearly two-thirds of all respondents (63.8%) reported having an underlying skin condition, most commonly acne (21%), eczema (17%), and rosacea (6%). More than half (57%) reported sensitive skin, 27% of whom reported no other skin disease. Individuals with sensitive skin had higher mean SS-10 scores, compared with those with nonsensitive skin (14.61 vs. 4.32; P = .002) and burning was the main symptom among those with sensitive skin (56%), followed by itch (50%), redness (39%), dryness (39%) and pain (17%).

Compared with those who did not meet criteria for sensitive skin, those who did were more likely to report a personal history of allergy (56.25% vs. 8.33%; P = .0002) and were nearly seven times more likely to have seen a dermatologist about their concerns (odds ratio, 6.857; P = .0012).

In other findings limited to respondents with sensitive skin, 72% who reported reactions to general consumer skin care products also reported reacting to products marketed for sensitive skin, and 94% reported reactivity to at least one trigger, most commonly extreme temperatures (34%), stress (34%), sweat (33%), sun exposure (29%), and diet (28%). “We were particularly surprised by the high rates of reactivity to skin care products designed for and marketed to those suffering with sensitive skin,” Ms. McCormick told this news organization. “Importantly, there is currently no federal or legal standard regulating ingredients in products marketed for sensitive skin, and many products lack testing in sensitive skin specifically. Our data suggest an opportunity for improvement of sensitive skin care.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its small sample size. “Reconducting this survey in a larger population will help validate our findings,” she said.

The research was supported by two independent research grants from Galderma: one supporting Ms. McCormick with a Sensitive Skin Research Fellowship and the other a Sensitive Skin Research Acceleration Fund. Dr. Friedman reported having no relevant disclosures.

NEW ORLEANS – Among individuals who were surveyed at a health fair, most of whom were persons of color, 57% self-reported having sensitive skin.

Respondents also reported high rates of reactions to skin care products marketed for sensitive skin, and most said they had visited a dermatologist about their condition.

Those are among the key findings of a pilot study designed to assess the prevalence, symptom burden, and behaviors of self-identified persons of color with sensitive skin, which senior author Adam Friedman, MD, and colleagues defined as a subjective syndrome of cutaneous hyperreactivity to otherwise innocuous stimuli. “Improved understanding of sensitive skin is essential, and we encourage additional research into pathophysiology and creating a consensus definition for sensitive skin,” Dr. Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview in advance of the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, where the study was presented during an e-poster session. The findings were also reported online in JAAD International.

In May of 2022, Dr. Friedman, first author Erika McCormick, a 4th-year medical student at George Washington University, and colleagues invited individuals attending a community health fair in an undeserved area of Washington, to complete the Sensitive Scale-10 (SS-10) and to answer other questions after receiving a brief education about sensitive skin. Of the 58 respondents, 78% were female, and 86% self-identified as a person of color.

“Our study population predominantly self-identified as Black, which only represents one piece of those who would be characterized as persons of color,” Dr. Friedman said. “That said, improved representation of both our study population, and furthermore persons of color, in all aspects of dermatology research is crucial to at a minimum ensure generalizability of findings to the U.S. population, and research on sensitive skin is but one component of this.”

Nearly two-thirds of all respondents (63.8%) reported having an underlying skin condition, most commonly acne (21%), eczema (17%), and rosacea (6%). More than half (57%) reported sensitive skin, 27% of whom reported no other skin disease. Individuals with sensitive skin had higher mean SS-10 scores, compared with those with nonsensitive skin (14.61 vs. 4.32; P = .002) and burning was the main symptom among those with sensitive skin (56%), followed by itch (50%), redness (39%), dryness (39%) and pain (17%).

Compared with those who did not meet criteria for sensitive skin, those who did were more likely to report a personal history of allergy (56.25% vs. 8.33%; P = .0002) and were nearly seven times more likely to have seen a dermatologist about their concerns (odds ratio, 6.857; P = .0012).

In other findings limited to respondents with sensitive skin, 72% who reported reactions to general consumer skin care products also reported reacting to products marketed for sensitive skin, and 94% reported reactivity to at least one trigger, most commonly extreme temperatures (34%), stress (34%), sweat (33%), sun exposure (29%), and diet (28%). “We were particularly surprised by the high rates of reactivity to skin care products designed for and marketed to those suffering with sensitive skin,” Ms. McCormick told this news organization. “Importantly, there is currently no federal or legal standard regulating ingredients in products marketed for sensitive skin, and many products lack testing in sensitive skin specifically. Our data suggest an opportunity for improvement of sensitive skin care.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its small sample size. “Reconducting this survey in a larger population will help validate our findings,” she said.

The research was supported by two independent research grants from Galderma: one supporting Ms. McCormick with a Sensitive Skin Research Fellowship and the other a Sensitive Skin Research Acceleration Fund. Dr. Friedman reported having no relevant disclosures.

NEW ORLEANS – Among individuals who were surveyed at a health fair, most of whom were persons of color, 57% self-reported having sensitive skin.

Respondents also reported high rates of reactions to skin care products marketed for sensitive skin, and most said they had visited a dermatologist about their condition.

Those are among the key findings of a pilot study designed to assess the prevalence, symptom burden, and behaviors of self-identified persons of color with sensitive skin, which senior author Adam Friedman, MD, and colleagues defined as a subjective syndrome of cutaneous hyperreactivity to otherwise innocuous stimuli. “Improved understanding of sensitive skin is essential, and we encourage additional research into pathophysiology and creating a consensus definition for sensitive skin,” Dr. Friedman, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview in advance of the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, where the study was presented during an e-poster session. The findings were also reported online in JAAD International.

In May of 2022, Dr. Friedman, first author Erika McCormick, a 4th-year medical student at George Washington University, and colleagues invited individuals attending a community health fair in an undeserved area of Washington, to complete the Sensitive Scale-10 (SS-10) and to answer other questions after receiving a brief education about sensitive skin. Of the 58 respondents, 78% were female, and 86% self-identified as a person of color.

“Our study population predominantly self-identified as Black, which only represents one piece of those who would be characterized as persons of color,” Dr. Friedman said. “That said, improved representation of both our study population, and furthermore persons of color, in all aspects of dermatology research is crucial to at a minimum ensure generalizability of findings to the U.S. population, and research on sensitive skin is but one component of this.”

Nearly two-thirds of all respondents (63.8%) reported having an underlying skin condition, most commonly acne (21%), eczema (17%), and rosacea (6%). More than half (57%) reported sensitive skin, 27% of whom reported no other skin disease. Individuals with sensitive skin had higher mean SS-10 scores, compared with those with nonsensitive skin (14.61 vs. 4.32; P = .002) and burning was the main symptom among those with sensitive skin (56%), followed by itch (50%), redness (39%), dryness (39%) and pain (17%).

Compared with those who did not meet criteria for sensitive skin, those who did were more likely to report a personal history of allergy (56.25% vs. 8.33%; P = .0002) and were nearly seven times more likely to have seen a dermatologist about their concerns (odds ratio, 6.857; P = .0012).

In other findings limited to respondents with sensitive skin, 72% who reported reactions to general consumer skin care products also reported reacting to products marketed for sensitive skin, and 94% reported reactivity to at least one trigger, most commonly extreme temperatures (34%), stress (34%), sweat (33%), sun exposure (29%), and diet (28%). “We were particularly surprised by the high rates of reactivity to skin care products designed for and marketed to those suffering with sensitive skin,” Ms. McCormick told this news organization. “Importantly, there is currently no federal or legal standard regulating ingredients in products marketed for sensitive skin, and many products lack testing in sensitive skin specifically. Our data suggest an opportunity for improvement of sensitive skin care.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its small sample size. “Reconducting this survey in a larger population will help validate our findings,” she said.

The research was supported by two independent research grants from Galderma: one supporting Ms. McCormick with a Sensitive Skin Research Fellowship and the other a Sensitive Skin Research Acceleration Fund. Dr. Friedman reported having no relevant disclosures.

The Mediterranean diet appears to be associated with a lower incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality in women, new observational data suggest.

Those who had a higher adherence to a Mediterranean diet had a 24% lower risk for cardiovascular disease and 23% lower risk for death.

“A healthy diet is a huge factor in preventing heart disease. However, current guidelines on preventing heart disease lack sex-specific recommendations,” said senior author Sarah Zaman, MBBS, PhD, an associate professor of medicine and principal research fellow at the University of Sydney’s Westmead Applied Research Centre.

snyferok/Thinkstock

Analyzing cardiovascular outcomes

Dr. Zaman and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 studies published between 2006 and 2021 that reported a Mediterranean diet score and included either all women or had stratified outcomes by sex. They excluded studies that referred to only certain components of the Mediterranean diet or combined it with other lifestyle-related factors.

The studies, which were mainly conducted in the United States and Europe, included 722,495 adult women without previous clinical or subclinical CVD, with a median follow-up of 12.5 years.

Higher Mediterranean diet adherence was defined as the highest category reporting the highest range of Mediterranean diet scores, and lower adherence was defined as the lowest category reporting lowest scores. Incident CVD included coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, cardiovascular death, major adverse cardiovascular events, major adverse cardiac cerebrovascular events, and patient-reported CVD.

Overall, higher adherence to a Mediterranean diet was associated with lower CVD incidence (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.81), total mortality (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.74-0.80), and coronary heart disease (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.87).

Stroke incidence was also lower among women who adhered to the Mediterranean diet, although it wasn’t considered statistically significant (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-1.01).

Additional analyses found similar reductions in risk across women of different ethnicities. Higher Mediterranean diet adherence was associated with lower CVD incidence for both women of European descent (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98) and women of non-European descent – Asian, Native Hawaiian, and African American – (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.72-0.87).

The results didn’t materially change in sensitivity analyses, the authors note. Excluding one study at a time, the pooled HRs for the highest versus the lowest Mediterranean diet adherence ranged from 0.76 (95% CI, 0.72-0.80) to 0.83 (95% CI, 0.70-0.98) for incident CVD and from 0.77 (95% CI, 0.75-0.80) to 0.77 (95% CI, 0.74-0.81) for total mortality among women.

At the same time, the authors pointed to several limitations, including the observational nature of all of the studies, the reliance on self-reported food frequency questionnaires, and heterogeneity in the adjustments for influential factors across the studies.
 

Additional considerations

Dr. Zaman and colleagues called for more sex-specific research in cardiology, including risk factors related to premature menopause, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, and autoimmune diseases such as systemic lupus.

Future studies should also explore the underlying mechanisms that may explain the links between the Mediterranean diet, cardiovascular disease, and death, the authors write. For instance, the diet may reduce inflammation and cardiovascular risk factors through antioxidant and beneficial gut microbiome pathways. Other components of the diet – such as polyphenols, nitrates, omega-3 fatty acids, higher fiber intake, and reduced glycemic load – may also play a role.

“It was striking to see how strong the long-term cardioprotective properties of a Mediterranean-type dietary pattern were,” said Samia Mora, MD, MHS, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the Center for Lipid Metabolomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

Dr. Mora, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched potential mechanisms related to the Mediterranean diet, cardiovascular events, and diabetes in women. She and colleagues have found that women with high adherence to the diet are more likely to have lower inflammation, insulin resistance, body mass index, and blood pressure, as well as improved lipid and metabolic profiles.

“This could represent an opportunity to intervene earlier and more intensively on improving inflammation, insulin resistance, and cardiometabolic health through evidence-based dietary approaches such as the Mediterranean diet,” she said. “As health care providers, we should promote the healthy dietary attributes of the Mediterranean diet, especially as many of our patients in the U.S. are less familiar with the Mediterranean diet and how to incorporate its components into daily food intake.”

The study did not receive any funding. Dr. Zaman was supported by a Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship. The authors declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Mora reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Mediterranean diet appears to be associated with a lower incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality in women, new observational data suggest.

Those who had a higher adherence to a Mediterranean diet had a 24% lower risk for cardiovascular disease and 23% lower risk for death.

“A healthy diet is a huge factor in preventing heart disease. However, current guidelines on preventing heart disease lack sex-specific recommendations,” said senior author Sarah Zaman, MBBS, PhD, an associate professor of medicine and principal research fellow at the University of Sydney’s Westmead Applied Research Centre.

snyferok/Thinkstock

Analyzing cardiovascular outcomes

Dr. Zaman and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 studies published between 2006 and 2021 that reported a Mediterranean diet score and included either all women or had stratified outcomes by sex. They excluded studies that referred to only certain components of the Mediterranean diet or combined it with other lifestyle-related factors.

The studies, which were mainly conducted in the United States and Europe, included 722,495 adult women without previous clinical or subclinical CVD, with a median follow-up of 12.5 years.

Higher Mediterranean diet adherence was defined as the highest category reporting the highest range of Mediterranean diet scores, and lower adherence was defined as the lowest category reporting lowest scores. Incident CVD included coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, cardiovascular death, major adverse cardiovascular events, major adverse cardiac cerebrovascular events, and patient-reported CVD.

Overall, higher adherence to a Mediterranean diet was associated with lower CVD incidence (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.81), total mortality (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.74-0.80), and coronary heart disease (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.87).

Stroke incidence was also lower among women who adhered to the Mediterranean diet, although it wasn’t considered statistically significant (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-1.01).

Additional analyses found similar reductions in risk across women of different ethnicities. Higher Mediterranean diet adherence was associated with lower CVD incidence for both women of European descent (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98) and women of non-European descent – Asian, Native Hawaiian, and African American – (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.72-0.87).

The results didn’t materially change in sensitivity analyses, the authors note. Excluding one study at a time, the pooled HRs for the highest versus the lowest Mediterranean diet adherence ranged from 0.76 (95% CI, 0.72-0.80) to 0.83 (95% CI, 0.70-0.98) for incident CVD and from 0.77 (95% CI, 0.75-0.80) to 0.77 (95% CI, 0.74-0.81) for total mortality among women.

At the same time, the authors pointed to several limitations, including the observational nature of all of the studies, the reliance on self-reported food frequency questionnaires, and heterogeneity in the adjustments for influential factors across the studies.
 

Additional considerations

Dr. Zaman and colleagues called for more sex-specific research in cardiology, including risk factors related to premature menopause, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, and autoimmune diseases such as systemic lupus.

Future studies should also explore the underlying mechanisms that may explain the links between the Mediterranean diet, cardiovascular disease, and death, the authors write. For instance, the diet may reduce inflammation and cardiovascular risk factors through antioxidant and beneficial gut microbiome pathways. Other components of the diet – such as polyphenols, nitrates, omega-3 fatty acids, higher fiber intake, and reduced glycemic load – may also play a role.

“It was striking to see how strong the long-term cardioprotective properties of a Mediterranean-type dietary pattern were,” said Samia Mora, MD, MHS, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the Center for Lipid Metabolomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

Dr. Mora, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched potential mechanisms related to the Mediterranean diet, cardiovascular events, and diabetes in women. She and colleagues have found that women with high adherence to the diet are more likely to have lower inflammation, insulin resistance, body mass index, and blood pressure, as well as improved lipid and metabolic profiles.

“This could represent an opportunity to intervene earlier and more intensively on improving inflammation, insulin resistance, and cardiometabolic health through evidence-based dietary approaches such as the Mediterranean diet,” she said. “As health care providers, we should promote the healthy dietary attributes of the Mediterranean diet, especially as many of our patients in the U.S. are less familiar with the Mediterranean diet and how to incorporate its components into daily food intake.”

The study did not receive any funding. Dr. Zaman was supported by a Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship. The authors declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Mora reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Mediterranean diet appears to be associated with a lower incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and mortality in women, new observational data suggest.

Those who had a higher adherence to a Mediterranean diet had a 24% lower risk for cardiovascular disease and 23% lower risk for death.

“A healthy diet is a huge factor in preventing heart disease. However, current guidelines on preventing heart disease lack sex-specific recommendations,” said senior author Sarah Zaman, MBBS, PhD, an associate professor of medicine and principal research fellow at the University of Sydney’s Westmead Applied Research Centre.

snyferok/Thinkstock

Analyzing cardiovascular outcomes

Dr. Zaman and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 16 studies published between 2006 and 2021 that reported a Mediterranean diet score and included either all women or had stratified outcomes by sex. They excluded studies that referred to only certain components of the Mediterranean diet or combined it with other lifestyle-related factors.

The studies, which were mainly conducted in the United States and Europe, included 722,495 adult women without previous clinical or subclinical CVD, with a median follow-up of 12.5 years.

Higher Mediterranean diet adherence was defined as the highest category reporting the highest range of Mediterranean diet scores, and lower adherence was defined as the lowest category reporting lowest scores. Incident CVD included coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, cardiovascular death, major adverse cardiovascular events, major adverse cardiac cerebrovascular events, and patient-reported CVD.

Overall, higher adherence to a Mediterranean diet was associated with lower CVD incidence (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.81), total mortality (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.74-0.80), and coronary heart disease (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.87).

Stroke incidence was also lower among women who adhered to the Mediterranean diet, although it wasn’t considered statistically significant (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-1.01).

Additional analyses found similar reductions in risk across women of different ethnicities. Higher Mediterranean diet adherence was associated with lower CVD incidence for both women of European descent (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59-0.98) and women of non-European descent – Asian, Native Hawaiian, and African American – (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.72-0.87).

The results didn’t materially change in sensitivity analyses, the authors note. Excluding one study at a time, the pooled HRs for the highest versus the lowest Mediterranean diet adherence ranged from 0.76 (95% CI, 0.72-0.80) to 0.83 (95% CI, 0.70-0.98) for incident CVD and from 0.77 (95% CI, 0.75-0.80) to 0.77 (95% CI, 0.74-0.81) for total mortality among women.

At the same time, the authors pointed to several limitations, including the observational nature of all of the studies, the reliance on self-reported food frequency questionnaires, and heterogeneity in the adjustments for influential factors across the studies.
 

Additional considerations

Dr. Zaman and colleagues called for more sex-specific research in cardiology, including risk factors related to premature menopause, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, and autoimmune diseases such as systemic lupus.

Future studies should also explore the underlying mechanisms that may explain the links between the Mediterranean diet, cardiovascular disease, and death, the authors write. For instance, the diet may reduce inflammation and cardiovascular risk factors through antioxidant and beneficial gut microbiome pathways. Other components of the diet – such as polyphenols, nitrates, omega-3 fatty acids, higher fiber intake, and reduced glycemic load – may also play a role.

“It was striking to see how strong the long-term cardioprotective properties of a Mediterranean-type dietary pattern were,” said Samia Mora, MD, MHS, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and director of the Center for Lipid Metabolomics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

Dr. Mora, who wasn’t involved with this study, has researched potential mechanisms related to the Mediterranean diet, cardiovascular events, and diabetes in women. She and colleagues have found that women with high adherence to the diet are more likely to have lower inflammation, insulin resistance, body mass index, and blood pressure, as well as improved lipid and metabolic profiles.

“This could represent an opportunity to intervene earlier and more intensively on improving inflammation, insulin resistance, and cardiometabolic health through evidence-based dietary approaches such as the Mediterranean diet,” she said. “As health care providers, we should promote the healthy dietary attributes of the Mediterranean diet, especially as many of our patients in the U.S. are less familiar with the Mediterranean diet and how to incorporate its components into daily food intake.”

The study did not receive any funding. Dr. Zaman was supported by a Heart Foundation Future Leader Fellowship. The authors declared no conflicts of interest. Dr. Mora reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

HONOLULU – In the opinion of Nazanin A. Saedi, MD, social media-induced dissatisfaction with appearance is getting out of hand in the field of cosmetic dermatology, with the emergence of apps to filter and edit images to the patient’s liking.

This, coupled with the volume of celebrity images viewable on cable television and every social media platform, has led to racial morphing, a trend in which aesthetically modified faces have trended toward a similar look.

“Overexposure of celebrity images and altered faces on social media have led to a trend of overarching brows, sculpted noses, enlarged cheeks, and sharply defined jawlines,” Dr. Saedi, cochair of the laser and aesthetics surgery center at Dermatology Associates of Plymouth Meeting, Pa., said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by MedscapeLIVE! “These trends have made people of different ethnicities morph into a similar appearance.”

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

In a study published almost 20 years ago in the journal Perception, Irish researchers manipulated the familiarity of typical and distinctive faces to measure the effect on attractiveness. They found that episodic familiarity affects attractiveness ratings independently of general or structural familiarity.

“So, the more you saw a face, the more familiar that face was to you,” said Dr. Saedi, who was not involved with the study. “Over time, you felt that to be more attractive. I think that’s a lot of what’s going on in the trends that we’re seeing – both in real life and on social media. I do think we need to be more mindful of maintaining features that make an individual unique, while also maintaining their ethnic beauty.”

In an interview at the meeting, Jacqueline D. Watchmaker, MD, a board-certified cosmetic and medical dermatologist who practices in Scottsdale, Ariz., said that she identifies with the notion of racial morphing in her own clinical experience. “Patients come in and specifically ask for chiseled jawlines, high cheekbones, and bigger lips,” Dr. Watchmaker said. “It’s a tricky situation when they ask for [a treatment] you don’t think they need. I prefer a more staged approach to maintain their individuality while giving them a little bit of the aesthetic benefit that they’re looking for.”

Dr. Saedi disclosed ties with AbbVie, Aerolase, Allergan, Alma, Cartessa, Cynosure, Galderma Laboratories, LP, Grand Cosmetics, Revelle Aesthetics, and Revision Skincare. Dr. Watchmaker reported having no financial disclosures.

Medscape and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

HONOLULU – In the opinion of Nazanin A. Saedi, MD, social media-induced dissatisfaction with appearance is getting out of hand in the field of cosmetic dermatology, with the emergence of apps to filter and edit images to the patient’s liking.

This, coupled with the volume of celebrity images viewable on cable television and every social media platform, has led to racial morphing, a trend in which aesthetically modified faces have trended toward a similar look.

“Overexposure of celebrity images and altered faces on social media have led to a trend of overarching brows, sculpted noses, enlarged cheeks, and sharply defined jawlines,” Dr. Saedi, cochair of the laser and aesthetics surgery center at Dermatology Associates of Plymouth Meeting, Pa., said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by MedscapeLIVE! “These trends have made people of different ethnicities morph into a similar appearance.”

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

In a study published almost 20 years ago in the journal Perception, Irish researchers manipulated the familiarity of typical and distinctive faces to measure the effect on attractiveness. They found that episodic familiarity affects attractiveness ratings independently of general or structural familiarity.

“So, the more you saw a face, the more familiar that face was to you,” said Dr. Saedi, who was not involved with the study. “Over time, you felt that to be more attractive. I think that’s a lot of what’s going on in the trends that we’re seeing – both in real life and on social media. I do think we need to be more mindful of maintaining features that make an individual unique, while also maintaining their ethnic beauty.”

In an interview at the meeting, Jacqueline D. Watchmaker, MD, a board-certified cosmetic and medical dermatologist who practices in Scottsdale, Ariz., said that she identifies with the notion of racial morphing in her own clinical experience. “Patients come in and specifically ask for chiseled jawlines, high cheekbones, and bigger lips,” Dr. Watchmaker said. “It’s a tricky situation when they ask for [a treatment] you don’t think they need. I prefer a more staged approach to maintain their individuality while giving them a little bit of the aesthetic benefit that they’re looking for.”

Dr. Saedi disclosed ties with AbbVie, Aerolase, Allergan, Alma, Cartessa, Cynosure, Galderma Laboratories, LP, Grand Cosmetics, Revelle Aesthetics, and Revision Skincare. Dr. Watchmaker reported having no financial disclosures.

Medscape and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

HONOLULU – In the opinion of Nazanin A. Saedi, MD, social media-induced dissatisfaction with appearance is getting out of hand in the field of cosmetic dermatology, with the emergence of apps to filter and edit images to the patient’s liking.

This, coupled with the volume of celebrity images viewable on cable television and every social media platform, has led to racial morphing, a trend in which aesthetically modified faces have trended toward a similar look.

“Overexposure of celebrity images and altered faces on social media have led to a trend of overarching brows, sculpted noses, enlarged cheeks, and sharply defined jawlines,” Dr. Saedi, cochair of the laser and aesthetics surgery center at Dermatology Associates of Plymouth Meeting, Pa., said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by MedscapeLIVE! “These trends have made people of different ethnicities morph into a similar appearance.”

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

In a study published almost 20 years ago in the journal Perception, Irish researchers manipulated the familiarity of typical and distinctive faces to measure the effect on attractiveness. They found that episodic familiarity affects attractiveness ratings independently of general or structural familiarity.

“So, the more you saw a face, the more familiar that face was to you,” said Dr. Saedi, who was not involved with the study. “Over time, you felt that to be more attractive. I think that’s a lot of what’s going on in the trends that we’re seeing – both in real life and on social media. I do think we need to be more mindful of maintaining features that make an individual unique, while also maintaining their ethnic beauty.”

In an interview at the meeting, Jacqueline D. Watchmaker, MD, a board-certified cosmetic and medical dermatologist who practices in Scottsdale, Ariz., said that she identifies with the notion of racial morphing in her own clinical experience. “Patients come in and specifically ask for chiseled jawlines, high cheekbones, and bigger lips,” Dr. Watchmaker said. “It’s a tricky situation when they ask for [a treatment] you don’t think they need. I prefer a more staged approach to maintain their individuality while giving them a little bit of the aesthetic benefit that they’re looking for.”

Dr. Saedi disclosed ties with AbbVie, Aerolase, Allergan, Alma, Cartessa, Cynosure, Galderma Laboratories, LP, Grand Cosmetics, Revelle Aesthetics, and Revision Skincare. Dr. Watchmaker reported having no financial disclosures.

Medscape and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

New national data on the occurrence of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) among different racial groups confirms that the disease is more common among Black women nationwide. A state-by-state analysis in the study, published online  in JAMA Oncology, shows that these trends persist at the state level.

The analysis revealed that incidence rate ratios of TNBC were significantly higher among Black women, compared with White women, in all states with data on this population. Rates ranged from a low of 1.38 in Colorado to a high of 2.32 in Delaware.

The state-level disparities highlight gaps in physicians’ understanding of how social factors contribute to disparities in TNBC risk and the need “to develop effective preventative measures,” the study authors explain.

“We’ve realized for a long time that Black women have a higher incidence of TNBC. This is related to the genetic signature of the cancer. So that is not at all surprising,” said Arnold M. Baskies, MD, past chairman of the national board of directors of the American Cancer Society, Atlanta, who was not involved in the research. However, “the variance of TNBC among women from state to state is somewhat surprising.”

Existing research shows that TNBC is diagnosed more frequently among non-Hispanic Black women than among other populations in the United States, but it’s unclear whether these racial and ethnic disparities differ at the state level.

The authors identified 133,579 women with TNBC from the U.S. Cancer Statistics Public Use Research Database whose conditions were diagnosed from January 2015 through the end of December 2019. Most patients (64.5%) were White, 21.5% were Black, nearly 10% were Hispanic, 3.7% were Asian or Pacific Islander, and 0.6% were American Indian or Alaska Native. States with fewer than 30 cases were excluded, as was Nevada, owing to concerns regarding data quality. That left eight states for American Indian or Alaska Natives, 22 for Asian or Pacific Islanders, 35 for Hispanic women, 38 for Black women, and 50 for White women.

Overall, the incidence ratios of TNBC were highest among Black women (IR, 25.2 per 100,000), followed by White women (IR, 12.9 per 100,000), American Indian or Alaska Native women (IR, 11.2 per 100,000), Hispanic women (IR, 11.1 per 100,000 women), and Asian or Pacific Islander (IR, 9.0 per 100,000) women.

The authors also uncovered significant state-by-state variations in TNBC incidence by racial and ethnic groups. The lowest IR rates occurred among Asian or Pacific Islander women in Oregon and Pennsylvania – fewer than 7 per 100,000 women – and the highest occurred among Black women in Delaware, Missouri, Louisiana, and Mississippi – more than 29 per 100,000 women.

In the 38 states for which data on Black women were available, IR rates were significantly higher among Black women in all 38, compared with White women. The IR rates ranged from a low of 1.38 (IR, 17.4 per 100 000 women) in Colorado to a high of 2.32 (IR, 32.0 per 100 000 women) in Delaware.

While genetics play a role in TNBC risk, “the substantial geographic variation we found within each racial and ethnic group is highly suggestive that there are structural, environmental, and social factors at play in determining women’s risk of TNBC,” said lead study author Hyuna Sung, PhD, senior principal scientist and cancer epidemiologist at the American Cancer Society, Atlanta.

Existing evidence indicates that Black and White women living in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods are at higher risk of developing more aggressive subtypes of breast cancer, Dr. Sung said. Another factor, Dr. Sung and co-authors note, is breastfeeding. Across races, women who breastfeed have lower rates of TNBC.

Getting more definitive answers as to what causes differences in TNBC rates across states and what strategies can help reduce these disparities will be difficult and requires more research. “We really need to do a better job at researching and treating TNBC to improve health care equality for all women,” Dr. Baskies said. “The mortality rates from this cancer are high, and we rely heavily on surgery and toxic chemotherapy to treat it.”

Dr. Sung agreed, noting that “the observed state variation in TNBC rates merits further studies with risk factor data at multiple levels to better understand the associations of social exposures with the risk of TNBC.”

In states such as Louisiana and Mississippi, which are known to have a disproportionately higher burden of many types of cancers, “addressing barriers to access to preventive care and empowering public health efforts to promote a healthy living environment are the best policy prescription that could be deduced from our results,” Dr. Sung concluded.

Dr. Baskies is on the board of directors of Anixa Biosciences, which is currently conducting a clinical trial of a TNBC vaccine at the Cleveland Clinic. Dr. Sung has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New national data on the occurrence of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) among different racial groups confirms that the disease is more common among Black women nationwide. A state-by-state analysis in the study, published online  in JAMA Oncology, shows that these trends persist at the state level.

The analysis revealed that incidence rate ratios of TNBC were significantly higher among Black women, compared with White women, in all states with data on this population. Rates ranged from a low of 1.38 in Colorado to a high of 2.32 in Delaware.

The state-level disparities highlight gaps in physicians’ understanding of how social factors contribute to disparities in TNBC risk and the need “to develop effective preventative measures,” the study authors explain.

“We’ve realized for a long time that Black women have a higher incidence of TNBC. This is related to the genetic signature of the cancer. So that is not at all surprising,” said Arnold M. Baskies, MD, past chairman of the national board of directors of the American Cancer Society, Atlanta, who was not involved in the research. However, “the variance of TNBC among women from state to state is somewhat surprising.”

Existing research shows that TNBC is diagnosed more frequently among non-Hispanic Black women than among other populations in the United States, but it’s unclear whether these racial and ethnic disparities differ at the state level.

The authors identified 133,579 women with TNBC from the U.S. Cancer Statistics Public Use Research Database whose conditions were diagnosed from January 2015 through the end of December 2019. Most patients (64.5%) were White, 21.5% were Black, nearly 10% were Hispanic, 3.7% were Asian or Pacific Islander, and 0.6% were American Indian or Alaska Native. States with fewer than 30 cases were excluded, as was Nevada, owing to concerns regarding data quality. That left eight states for American Indian or Alaska Natives, 22 for Asian or Pacific Islanders, 35 for Hispanic women, 38 for Black women, and 50 for White women.

Overall, the incidence ratios of TNBC were highest among Black women (IR, 25.2 per 100,000), followed by White women (IR, 12.9 per 100,000), American Indian or Alaska Native women (IR, 11.2 per 100,000), Hispanic women (IR, 11.1 per 100,000 women), and Asian or Pacific Islander (IR, 9.0 per 100,000) women.

The authors also uncovered significant state-by-state variations in TNBC incidence by racial and ethnic groups. The lowest IR rates occurred among Asian or Pacific Islander women in Oregon and Pennsylvania – fewer than 7 per 100,000 women – and the highest occurred among Black women in Delaware, Missouri, Louisiana, and Mississippi – more than 29 per 100,000 women.

In the 38 states for which data on Black women were available, IR rates were significantly higher among Black women in all 38, compared with White women. The IR rates ranged from a low of 1.38 (IR, 17.4 per 100 000 women) in Colorado to a high of 2.32 (IR, 32.0 per 100 000 women) in Delaware.

While genetics play a role in TNBC risk, “the substantial geographic variation we found within each racial and ethnic group is highly suggestive that there are structural, environmental, and social factors at play in determining women’s risk of TNBC,” said lead study author Hyuna Sung, PhD, senior principal scientist and cancer epidemiologist at the American Cancer Society, Atlanta.

Existing evidence indicates that Black and White women living in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods are at higher risk of developing more aggressive subtypes of breast cancer, Dr. Sung said. Another factor, Dr. Sung and co-authors note, is breastfeeding. Across races, women who breastfeed have lower rates of TNBC.

Getting more definitive answers as to what causes differences in TNBC rates across states and what strategies can help reduce these disparities will be difficult and requires more research. “We really need to do a better job at researching and treating TNBC to improve health care equality for all women,” Dr. Baskies said. “The mortality rates from this cancer are high, and we rely heavily on surgery and toxic chemotherapy to treat it.”

Dr. Sung agreed, noting that “the observed state variation in TNBC rates merits further studies with risk factor data at multiple levels to better understand the associations of social exposures with the risk of TNBC.”

In states such as Louisiana and Mississippi, which are known to have a disproportionately higher burden of many types of cancers, “addressing barriers to access to preventive care and empowering public health efforts to promote a healthy living environment are the best policy prescription that could be deduced from our results,” Dr. Sung concluded.

Dr. Baskies is on the board of directors of Anixa Biosciences, which is currently conducting a clinical trial of a TNBC vaccine at the Cleveland Clinic. Dr. Sung has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

New national data on the occurrence of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) among different racial groups confirms that the disease is more common among Black women nationwide. A state-by-state analysis in the study, published online  in JAMA Oncology, shows that these trends persist at the state level.

The analysis revealed that incidence rate ratios of TNBC were significantly higher among Black women, compared with White women, in all states with data on this population. Rates ranged from a low of 1.38 in Colorado to a high of 2.32 in Delaware.

The state-level disparities highlight gaps in physicians’ understanding of how social factors contribute to disparities in TNBC risk and the need “to develop effective preventative measures,” the study authors explain.

“We’ve realized for a long time that Black women have a higher incidence of TNBC. This is related to the genetic signature of the cancer. So that is not at all surprising,” said Arnold M. Baskies, MD, past chairman of the national board of directors of the American Cancer Society, Atlanta, who was not involved in the research. However, “the variance of TNBC among women from state to state is somewhat surprising.”

Existing research shows that TNBC is diagnosed more frequently among non-Hispanic Black women than among other populations in the United States, but it’s unclear whether these racial and ethnic disparities differ at the state level.

The authors identified 133,579 women with TNBC from the U.S. Cancer Statistics Public Use Research Database whose conditions were diagnosed from January 2015 through the end of December 2019. Most patients (64.5%) were White, 21.5% were Black, nearly 10% were Hispanic, 3.7% were Asian or Pacific Islander, and 0.6% were American Indian or Alaska Native. States with fewer than 30 cases were excluded, as was Nevada, owing to concerns regarding data quality. That left eight states for American Indian or Alaska Natives, 22 for Asian or Pacific Islanders, 35 for Hispanic women, 38 for Black women, and 50 for White women.

Overall, the incidence ratios of TNBC were highest among Black women (IR, 25.2 per 100,000), followed by White women (IR, 12.9 per 100,000), American Indian or Alaska Native women (IR, 11.2 per 100,000), Hispanic women (IR, 11.1 per 100,000 women), and Asian or Pacific Islander (IR, 9.0 per 100,000) women.

The authors also uncovered significant state-by-state variations in TNBC incidence by racial and ethnic groups. The lowest IR rates occurred among Asian or Pacific Islander women in Oregon and Pennsylvania – fewer than 7 per 100,000 women – and the highest occurred among Black women in Delaware, Missouri, Louisiana, and Mississippi – more than 29 per 100,000 women.

In the 38 states for which data on Black women were available, IR rates were significantly higher among Black women in all 38, compared with White women. The IR rates ranged from a low of 1.38 (IR, 17.4 per 100 000 women) in Colorado to a high of 2.32 (IR, 32.0 per 100 000 women) in Delaware.

While genetics play a role in TNBC risk, “the substantial geographic variation we found within each racial and ethnic group is highly suggestive that there are structural, environmental, and social factors at play in determining women’s risk of TNBC,” said lead study author Hyuna Sung, PhD, senior principal scientist and cancer epidemiologist at the American Cancer Society, Atlanta.

Existing evidence indicates that Black and White women living in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods are at higher risk of developing more aggressive subtypes of breast cancer, Dr. Sung said. Another factor, Dr. Sung and co-authors note, is breastfeeding. Across races, women who breastfeed have lower rates of TNBC.

Getting more definitive answers as to what causes differences in TNBC rates across states and what strategies can help reduce these disparities will be difficult and requires more research. “We really need to do a better job at researching and treating TNBC to improve health care equality for all women,” Dr. Baskies said. “The mortality rates from this cancer are high, and we rely heavily on surgery and toxic chemotherapy to treat it.”

Dr. Sung agreed, noting that “the observed state variation in TNBC rates merits further studies with risk factor data at multiple levels to better understand the associations of social exposures with the risk of TNBC.”

In states such as Louisiana and Mississippi, which are known to have a disproportionately higher burden of many types of cancers, “addressing barriers to access to preventive care and empowering public health efforts to promote a healthy living environment are the best policy prescription that could be deduced from our results,” Dr. Sung concluded.

Dr. Baskies is on the board of directors of Anixa Biosciences, which is currently conducting a clinical trial of a TNBC vaccine at the Cleveland Clinic. Dr. Sung has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Black people with dementia are less likely than their White peers to receive cognitive enhancers and other medications for dementia in the outpatient setting, preliminary data from a retrospective study show.

“There have been disparities regarding the use of cognition-enhancing medications in the treatment of dementia described in the literature, and disparities in the use of adjunctive treatments for other neuropsychiatric symptoms of dementia described in hospital and nursing home settings,” said study investigator Alice Hawkins, MD, with the department of neurology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “However, less is known about use of dementia medications that people take at home. Our study found disparities in this area as well,” Dr. Hawkins said.

The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

More research needed

The researchers analyzed data on 3,655 Black and 12,885 White patients with a diagnosis of dementia who were seen at Mount Sinai. They evaluated utilization of five medication classes:

• cholinesterase inhibitors.
• N-methyl D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists.
• selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).
• antipsychotics.
• benzodiazepines.

They found that Black patients with dementia received cognitive enhancers less often than White patients with dementia (20% vs. 30% for cholinesterase inhibitors; 10% vs. 17% for NMDA antagonists).

Black patients with dementia were also less likely to receive medications for behavioral and psychological symptom management, compared with White peers (24% vs. 40% for SSRIs; 18% vs. 22% for antipsychotics; and 18% vs. 37% for benzodiazepines).

These disparities remained even after controlling for factors such as demographics and insurance coverage.

“Larger systemic forces such as systemic racism, quality of care, and provider bias are harder to pin down, particularly in the medical record, though they all may be playing a role in perpetuating these inequities. More research will be needed to pinpoint all the factors that are contributing to these disparities,” said Dr. Hawkins.

The researchers found Black patients who were referred to a neurologist received cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA antagonists at rates comparable with White patients. “Therefore, referrals to specialists such as neurologists may decrease the disparities for these prescriptions,” Dr. Hawkins said.
 

Crucial research

Commenting on the findings, Carl V. Hill, PhD, MPH, Alzheimer’s Association chief diversity, equity, and inclusion officer, said the study “adds to previous research that points to inequities in the administering of medications for dementia symptoms, and highlights the inequities we know exist in dementia care.”

“Cognitive enhancers and other behavioral/psychological management drugs, while they don’t stop, slow, or cure dementia, can offer relief for some of the challenging symptoms associated with diseases caused by dementia. If people aren’t being appropriately prescribed medications that may offer symptom relief from this challenging disease, it could lead to poorer health outcomes,” said Dr. Hill.

“These data underscore the importance of health disparities research that is crucial in uncovering inequities in dementia treatment, care, and research for Black individuals, as well as all underrepresented populations.

“We must create a society in which the underserved, disproportionately affected, and underrepresented are safe, cared for, and valued. This can be done through enhancing cultural competence in health care settings, improving representation within the health care system, and engaging and building trust with diverse communities,” Dr. Hill said.

The Alzheimer’s Association has partnered with more than 500 diverse community-based groups on disease education programs to ensure families have information and resources to navigate this devastating disease.

The study was supported by the American Academy of Neurology Resident Research Scholarship. Dr. Hawkins and Dr. Hill reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Black people with dementia are less likely than their White peers to receive cognitive enhancers and other medications for dementia in the outpatient setting, preliminary data from a retrospective study show.

“There have been disparities regarding the use of cognition-enhancing medications in the treatment of dementia described in the literature, and disparities in the use of adjunctive treatments for other neuropsychiatric symptoms of dementia described in hospital and nursing home settings,” said study investigator Alice Hawkins, MD, with the department of neurology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “However, less is known about use of dementia medications that people take at home. Our study found disparities in this area as well,” Dr. Hawkins said.

The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

More research needed

The researchers analyzed data on 3,655 Black and 12,885 White patients with a diagnosis of dementia who were seen at Mount Sinai. They evaluated utilization of five medication classes:

• cholinesterase inhibitors.
• N-methyl D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists.
• selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).
• antipsychotics.
• benzodiazepines.

They found that Black patients with dementia received cognitive enhancers less often than White patients with dementia (20% vs. 30% for cholinesterase inhibitors; 10% vs. 17% for NMDA antagonists).

Black patients with dementia were also less likely to receive medications for behavioral and psychological symptom management, compared with White peers (24% vs. 40% for SSRIs; 18% vs. 22% for antipsychotics; and 18% vs. 37% for benzodiazepines).

These disparities remained even after controlling for factors such as demographics and insurance coverage.

“Larger systemic forces such as systemic racism, quality of care, and provider bias are harder to pin down, particularly in the medical record, though they all may be playing a role in perpetuating these inequities. More research will be needed to pinpoint all the factors that are contributing to these disparities,” said Dr. Hawkins.

The researchers found Black patients who were referred to a neurologist received cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA antagonists at rates comparable with White patients. “Therefore, referrals to specialists such as neurologists may decrease the disparities for these prescriptions,” Dr. Hawkins said.
 

Crucial research

Commenting on the findings, Carl V. Hill, PhD, MPH, Alzheimer’s Association chief diversity, equity, and inclusion officer, said the study “adds to previous research that points to inequities in the administering of medications for dementia symptoms, and highlights the inequities we know exist in dementia care.”

“Cognitive enhancers and other behavioral/psychological management drugs, while they don’t stop, slow, or cure dementia, can offer relief for some of the challenging symptoms associated with diseases caused by dementia. If people aren’t being appropriately prescribed medications that may offer symptom relief from this challenging disease, it could lead to poorer health outcomes,” said Dr. Hill.

“These data underscore the importance of health disparities research that is crucial in uncovering inequities in dementia treatment, care, and research for Black individuals, as well as all underrepresented populations.

“We must create a society in which the underserved, disproportionately affected, and underrepresented are safe, cared for, and valued. This can be done through enhancing cultural competence in health care settings, improving representation within the health care system, and engaging and building trust with diverse communities,” Dr. Hill said.

The Alzheimer’s Association has partnered with more than 500 diverse community-based groups on disease education programs to ensure families have information and resources to navigate this devastating disease.

The study was supported by the American Academy of Neurology Resident Research Scholarship. Dr. Hawkins and Dr. Hill reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Black people with dementia are less likely than their White peers to receive cognitive enhancers and other medications for dementia in the outpatient setting, preliminary data from a retrospective study show.

“There have been disparities regarding the use of cognition-enhancing medications in the treatment of dementia described in the literature, and disparities in the use of adjunctive treatments for other neuropsychiatric symptoms of dementia described in hospital and nursing home settings,” said study investigator Alice Hawkins, MD, with the department of neurology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “However, less is known about use of dementia medications that people take at home. Our study found disparities in this area as well,” Dr. Hawkins said.

The findings were released ahead of the study’s scheduled presentation at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.
 

More research needed

The researchers analyzed data on 3,655 Black and 12,885 White patients with a diagnosis of dementia who were seen at Mount Sinai. They evaluated utilization of five medication classes:

• cholinesterase inhibitors.
• N-methyl D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists.
• selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).
• antipsychotics.
• benzodiazepines.

They found that Black patients with dementia received cognitive enhancers less often than White patients with dementia (20% vs. 30% for cholinesterase inhibitors; 10% vs. 17% for NMDA antagonists).

Black patients with dementia were also less likely to receive medications for behavioral and psychological symptom management, compared with White peers (24% vs. 40% for SSRIs; 18% vs. 22% for antipsychotics; and 18% vs. 37% for benzodiazepines).

These disparities remained even after controlling for factors such as demographics and insurance coverage.

“Larger systemic forces such as systemic racism, quality of care, and provider bias are harder to pin down, particularly in the medical record, though they all may be playing a role in perpetuating these inequities. More research will be needed to pinpoint all the factors that are contributing to these disparities,” said Dr. Hawkins.

The researchers found Black patients who were referred to a neurologist received cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA antagonists at rates comparable with White patients. “Therefore, referrals to specialists such as neurologists may decrease the disparities for these prescriptions,” Dr. Hawkins said.
 

Crucial research

Commenting on the findings, Carl V. Hill, PhD, MPH, Alzheimer’s Association chief diversity, equity, and inclusion officer, said the study “adds to previous research that points to inequities in the administering of medications for dementia symptoms, and highlights the inequities we know exist in dementia care.”

“Cognitive enhancers and other behavioral/psychological management drugs, while they don’t stop, slow, or cure dementia, can offer relief for some of the challenging symptoms associated with diseases caused by dementia. If people aren’t being appropriately prescribed medications that may offer symptom relief from this challenging disease, it could lead to poorer health outcomes,” said Dr. Hill.

“These data underscore the importance of health disparities research that is crucial in uncovering inequities in dementia treatment, care, and research for Black individuals, as well as all underrepresented populations.

“We must create a society in which the underserved, disproportionately affected, and underrepresented are safe, cared for, and valued. This can be done through enhancing cultural competence in health care settings, improving representation within the health care system, and engaging and building trust with diverse communities,” Dr. Hill said.

The Alzheimer’s Association has partnered with more than 500 diverse community-based groups on disease education programs to ensure families have information and resources to navigate this devastating disease.

The study was supported by the American Academy of Neurology Resident Research Scholarship. Dr. Hawkins and Dr. Hill reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

WASHINGTON – On the heels the recently published final report from the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 renal denervation trial, a new analysis showed that Black patients, like non-Blacks, had sustained blood pressure control.

Contrary to a signal from earlier results, “there is nothing race specific about renal denervation,” said presenter Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies conference, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

This did not prove to be the case during the 6-month controlled phase of the trial. When patients randomized to renal denervation or the sham procedure were stratified by race, the primary endpoint of reduction in office systolic blood pressure (SBP) reached significance in the experimental arm among non-Black patients (–6.63 mm Hg; P = .01), but not among Black patients (–2.25 mm Hg; P = .09).
 

Blacks comprised 26% of SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial

In the initial controlled analysis, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the lack of benefit in the substantial Black enrollment – representing 26% of the study total – weighed against the ability of the trial to demonstrate a benefit, but Dr. Bhatt pointed out that BP reductions were unexpectedly high in the sham group regardless of race. Patients randomized to the sham group were encouraged to adhere to antihypertensive therapy, and based on response, this was particularly effective in the Black sham subgroup.

In SYMPLICITY HTN-3, patients with treatment-resistant hypertension were randomized to renal denervation or a sham procedure in a 2:1 ratio. While the controlled phase lasted just 6 months, the follow-up after the study was unblinded has continued out to 3 years. Safety and efficacy were assessed at 12, 24, and 36 months.

Unlike the disappointing results at 6 months, renal denervation has been consistently associated with significantly lower BP over long-term follow-up, even though those randomized to the sham procedure were permitted to cross over. About two-thirds of the sham group did so.

In the recently published final report of SYMPLICITY, the overall median change in office SBP at 3 years regardless of race was –26.4 mm Hg in the group initially randomized to renal denervation versus –5.7 mm Hg (P < .0001) among those randomized to the sham procedure.

In the subgroup analysis presented by Dr. Bhatt, the relative control of office SBP, as well as other measures of blood pressure, were similarly and significantly reduced in both Black and non-Black patients. In general, the relative control offered by being randomized initially to renal denervation increased over time in both groups.

For example, the relative reduction in office SBP favoring renal denervation climbed from –12.0 mm Hg at 12 months (P = .0066) to –21.0 at 18 months (P = .0002) and then to –24.9 mm Hg (P < .0001) at 36 months in the Black subgroup. In non-Blacks, the same type of relative reductions were seen at each time point, climbing from –13.5 (P < .0001) to –20.5 (P < .0001) and then to –21.0 (P < .0001).

The comparisons for other measures of BP control, including office diastolic BP, 24-hour SBP, and BP control during morning, day, and night periods were also statistically and similarly improved for those initially randomized to renal denervation rather than a sham procedure among both Blacks and non-Blacks.

Renal denervation safe in Black and non-Black patients

Renal denervation was well tolerated in both Black and non-Black participants with no signal of long-term risks over 36 months in either group. Among Blacks, rates of death at 36 months (3% vs. 11%) and stroke (7% vs. 11%) were lower among those randomized to renal denervation relative to sham patients who never crossed over, but Dr. Bhatt said the numbers are too small to draw any conclusions about outcomes.

While this subgroup analysis, along with the final SYMPLICITY report, supports the efficacy of renal denervation over the long term, these data are also consistent with the recently published analysis of SPYRAL ON-MED . Together, these data have led many experts, including Dr. Bhatt, to conclude that renal denervation is effective and deserves regulatory approval.

“In out-of-control blood pressure, when patients have maxed out on medications and lifestyle, I think renal denervation is efficacious, and it is equally efficacious in Blacks and non-Blacks,” Dr. Bhatt said.

This subgroup analysis is important because of the need for options in treatment-resistant hypertension among Black as well as non-Black patients, pointed out Sripal Bangalore, MBBS, director of complex coronary intervention at New York University.

“I am glad that we did not conclude too soon that it does not work in Blacks,” Dr. Bangalore said. If renal denervation is approved, he expects this procedure to be a valuable tool in this racial group.

Dr. Bhatt reported financial relationship with more than 20 pharmaceutical and device companies, including Medtronic, which provided funding for the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial. Dr. Bangalore has financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Biotronik, Inari, Pfizer, Reata, and Truvic.

WASHINGTON – On the heels the recently published final report from the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 renal denervation trial, a new analysis showed that Black patients, like non-Blacks, had sustained blood pressure control.

Contrary to a signal from earlier results, “there is nothing race specific about renal denervation,” said presenter Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies conference, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

This did not prove to be the case during the 6-month controlled phase of the trial. When patients randomized to renal denervation or the sham procedure were stratified by race, the primary endpoint of reduction in office systolic blood pressure (SBP) reached significance in the experimental arm among non-Black patients (–6.63 mm Hg; P = .01), but not among Black patients (–2.25 mm Hg; P = .09).
 

Blacks comprised 26% of SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial

In the initial controlled analysis, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the lack of benefit in the substantial Black enrollment – representing 26% of the study total – weighed against the ability of the trial to demonstrate a benefit, but Dr. Bhatt pointed out that BP reductions were unexpectedly high in the sham group regardless of race. Patients randomized to the sham group were encouraged to adhere to antihypertensive therapy, and based on response, this was particularly effective in the Black sham subgroup.

In SYMPLICITY HTN-3, patients with treatment-resistant hypertension were randomized to renal denervation or a sham procedure in a 2:1 ratio. While the controlled phase lasted just 6 months, the follow-up after the study was unblinded has continued out to 3 years. Safety and efficacy were assessed at 12, 24, and 36 months.

Unlike the disappointing results at 6 months, renal denervation has been consistently associated with significantly lower BP over long-term follow-up, even though those randomized to the sham procedure were permitted to cross over. About two-thirds of the sham group did so.

In the recently published final report of SYMPLICITY, the overall median change in office SBP at 3 years regardless of race was –26.4 mm Hg in the group initially randomized to renal denervation versus –5.7 mm Hg (P < .0001) among those randomized to the sham procedure.

In the subgroup analysis presented by Dr. Bhatt, the relative control of office SBP, as well as other measures of blood pressure, were similarly and significantly reduced in both Black and non-Black patients. In general, the relative control offered by being randomized initially to renal denervation increased over time in both groups.

For example, the relative reduction in office SBP favoring renal denervation climbed from –12.0 mm Hg at 12 months (P = .0066) to –21.0 at 18 months (P = .0002) and then to –24.9 mm Hg (P < .0001) at 36 months in the Black subgroup. In non-Blacks, the same type of relative reductions were seen at each time point, climbing from –13.5 (P < .0001) to –20.5 (P < .0001) and then to –21.0 (P < .0001).

The comparisons for other measures of BP control, including office diastolic BP, 24-hour SBP, and BP control during morning, day, and night periods were also statistically and similarly improved for those initially randomized to renal denervation rather than a sham procedure among both Blacks and non-Blacks.

Renal denervation safe in Black and non-Black patients

Renal denervation was well tolerated in both Black and non-Black participants with no signal of long-term risks over 36 months in either group. Among Blacks, rates of death at 36 months (3% vs. 11%) and stroke (7% vs. 11%) were lower among those randomized to renal denervation relative to sham patients who never crossed over, but Dr. Bhatt said the numbers are too small to draw any conclusions about outcomes.

While this subgroup analysis, along with the final SYMPLICITY report, supports the efficacy of renal denervation over the long term, these data are also consistent with the recently published analysis of SPYRAL ON-MED . Together, these data have led many experts, including Dr. Bhatt, to conclude that renal denervation is effective and deserves regulatory approval.

“In out-of-control blood pressure, when patients have maxed out on medications and lifestyle, I think renal denervation is efficacious, and it is equally efficacious in Blacks and non-Blacks,” Dr. Bhatt said.

This subgroup analysis is important because of the need for options in treatment-resistant hypertension among Black as well as non-Black patients, pointed out Sripal Bangalore, MBBS, director of complex coronary intervention at New York University.

“I am glad that we did not conclude too soon that it does not work in Blacks,” Dr. Bangalore said. If renal denervation is approved, he expects this procedure to be a valuable tool in this racial group.

Dr. Bhatt reported financial relationship with more than 20 pharmaceutical and device companies, including Medtronic, which provided funding for the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial. Dr. Bangalore has financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Biotronik, Inari, Pfizer, Reata, and Truvic.

WASHINGTON – On the heels the recently published final report from the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 renal denervation trial, a new analysis showed that Black patients, like non-Blacks, had sustained blood pressure control.

Contrary to a signal from earlier results, “there is nothing race specific about renal denervation,” said presenter Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, at the Cardiovascular Research Technologies conference, sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

This did not prove to be the case during the 6-month controlled phase of the trial. When patients randomized to renal denervation or the sham procedure were stratified by race, the primary endpoint of reduction in office systolic blood pressure (SBP) reached significance in the experimental arm among non-Black patients (–6.63 mm Hg; P = .01), but not among Black patients (–2.25 mm Hg; P = .09).
 

Blacks comprised 26% of SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial

In the initial controlled analysis, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the lack of benefit in the substantial Black enrollment – representing 26% of the study total – weighed against the ability of the trial to demonstrate a benefit, but Dr. Bhatt pointed out that BP reductions were unexpectedly high in the sham group regardless of race. Patients randomized to the sham group were encouraged to adhere to antihypertensive therapy, and based on response, this was particularly effective in the Black sham subgroup.

In SYMPLICITY HTN-3, patients with treatment-resistant hypertension were randomized to renal denervation or a sham procedure in a 2:1 ratio. While the controlled phase lasted just 6 months, the follow-up after the study was unblinded has continued out to 3 years. Safety and efficacy were assessed at 12, 24, and 36 months.

Unlike the disappointing results at 6 months, renal denervation has been consistently associated with significantly lower BP over long-term follow-up, even though those randomized to the sham procedure were permitted to cross over. About two-thirds of the sham group did so.

In the recently published final report of SYMPLICITY, the overall median change in office SBP at 3 years regardless of race was –26.4 mm Hg in the group initially randomized to renal denervation versus –5.7 mm Hg (P < .0001) among those randomized to the sham procedure.

In the subgroup analysis presented by Dr. Bhatt, the relative control of office SBP, as well as other measures of blood pressure, were similarly and significantly reduced in both Black and non-Black patients. In general, the relative control offered by being randomized initially to renal denervation increased over time in both groups.

For example, the relative reduction in office SBP favoring renal denervation climbed from –12.0 mm Hg at 12 months (P = .0066) to –21.0 at 18 months (P = .0002) and then to –24.9 mm Hg (P < .0001) at 36 months in the Black subgroup. In non-Blacks, the same type of relative reductions were seen at each time point, climbing from –13.5 (P < .0001) to –20.5 (P < .0001) and then to –21.0 (P < .0001).

The comparisons for other measures of BP control, including office diastolic BP, 24-hour SBP, and BP control during morning, day, and night periods were also statistically and similarly improved for those initially randomized to renal denervation rather than a sham procedure among both Blacks and non-Blacks.

Renal denervation safe in Black and non-Black patients

Renal denervation was well tolerated in both Black and non-Black participants with no signal of long-term risks over 36 months in either group. Among Blacks, rates of death at 36 months (3% vs. 11%) and stroke (7% vs. 11%) were lower among those randomized to renal denervation relative to sham patients who never crossed over, but Dr. Bhatt said the numbers are too small to draw any conclusions about outcomes.

While this subgroup analysis, along with the final SYMPLICITY report, supports the efficacy of renal denervation over the long term, these data are also consistent with the recently published analysis of SPYRAL ON-MED . Together, these data have led many experts, including Dr. Bhatt, to conclude that renal denervation is effective and deserves regulatory approval.

“In out-of-control blood pressure, when patients have maxed out on medications and lifestyle, I think renal denervation is efficacious, and it is equally efficacious in Blacks and non-Blacks,” Dr. Bhatt said.

This subgroup analysis is important because of the need for options in treatment-resistant hypertension among Black as well as non-Black patients, pointed out Sripal Bangalore, MBBS, director of complex coronary intervention at New York University.

“I am glad that we did not conclude too soon that it does not work in Blacks,” Dr. Bangalore said. If renal denervation is approved, he expects this procedure to be a valuable tool in this racial group.

Dr. Bhatt reported financial relationship with more than 20 pharmaceutical and device companies, including Medtronic, which provided funding for the SYMPLICITY HTN-3 trial. Dr. Bangalore has financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Biotronik, Inari, Pfizer, Reata, and Truvic.

“Where are you really from?”

When I tell patients I am from Casper, Wyoming—wh ere I have lived the majority of my life—it’smet with disbelief. The subtext: YOU can’t be from THERE.

I didn’t used to think much of comments like this, but as I have continued to hear them, I find myself feeling tired—tired of explaining myself, tired of being treated differently than my colleagues, and tired of justifying myself. My experiences as a woman of color sadly are not uncommon in medicine.

Sara Martinez-Garcia, BA

Racial bias and racism are steeped in the culture of medicine—from the medical school admissions process^1,2 to the medical training itself.³ More than half of medical students who identify as underrepresented in medicine (UIM) experience microaggressions.⁴ Experiencing racism and sexism in the learning environment can lead to burnout, and microaggressions promote feelings of self-doubt and isolation. Medical students who experience microaggressions are more likely to report feelings of burnout and impaired learning.⁴ These experiences can leave one feeling as if “You do not belong” and “You are unworthy of being in this position.”

Addressing physician burnout already is complex, and addressing burnout caused by inequity, bias, and racism is even more so. In an ideal world, we would eliminate inequity, bias, and racism in medicine through institutional and individual actions. There has been movement to do so. For example, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), which oversees standards for US resident and fellow training, launched ACGME Equity Matters (https://www.acgme.org/what-we-do/diversity-equity-and-inclusion/ACGME-Equity-Matters/), an initiative aimed to improve diversity, equity, and antiracism practices within graduate medical eduation. However, we know that education alone isn’t enough to fix this monumental problem. Traditional diversity training as we have known it has never been demonstrated to contribute to lasting changes in behavior; it takes much more extensive and complex interventions to meaningfully reduce bias.⁵ In the meantime, we need action. As a medical community, we need to be better about not turning the other way when we see these things happening in our classrooms and in our hospitals. As individuals, we must self-reflect on the role that we each play in contributing to or combatting injustices and seek out bystander training to empower us to speak out against acts of bias such as sexism or racism. Whether it is supporting a fellow colleague or speaking out against an inappropriate interaction, we can all do our part. A very brief list of actions and resources to support our UIM students and colleagues are listed in the Table; those interested in more in-depth resources are encouraged to explore the Association of American Medical Colleges Diversity and Inclusion Toolkit (https://www.aamc.org/professional-development/affinity-groups/cfas/diversity-inclusion-toolkit/resources).

We can’t change the culture of medicine quickly or even in our lifetime. In the meantime, those who are UIM will continue to experience these events that erode our well-being. They will continue to need support. Discussing mental health has long been stigmatized, and physicians are no exception. Many physicians are hesitant to discuss mental health issues out of fear of judgement and perceived or even real repercussions on their careers.¹⁰ However, times are changing and evolving with the current generation of medical students. It’s no secret that medicine is stressful. Most medical schools provide free counseling services, which lowers the barrier for discussions of mental health from the beginning. Making talk about mental health just as normal as talking about other aspects of health takes away the fear that “something is wrong with me” if someone seeks out counseling and mental health services. Faculty should actively check in and maintain open lines of communication, which can be invaluable for UIM students and their training experience. Creating an environment where trainees can be real and honest about the struggles they face in and out of the classroom can make everyone feel like they are not alone.

Addressing burnout in medicine is going to require an all-hands-on-deck approach. At an institutional level, there is a lot of room for improvement—improving systems for physicians so they are able to operate at their highest level (eg, addressing the burdens of prior authorizations and the electronic medical record), setting reasonable expectations around productivity, and creating work structures that respect work-life balance.¹¹ But what can we do for ourselves? We believe that one of the most important ways to protect ourselves from burnout is to remember why. As a medical student, there is enormous pressure—pressure to learn an enormous volume of information, pass examinations, get involved in extracurricular activities, make connections, and seek research opportunities, while also cooking healthy food, grocery shopping, maintaining relationships with loved ones, and generally taking care of oneself. At times it can feel as if our lives outside of medical school are not important enough or valuable enough to make time for, but the pieces of our identity outside of medicine are what shape us into who we are today and are the roots of our purpose in medicine. Sometimes you can feel the most motivated, valued, and supported when you make time to have dinner with friends, call a family member, or simply spend time alone in the outdoors. Who you are and how you got to this point in your life are your identity. Reminding yourself of that can help when experiencing microaggressions or when that voice tries to tell you that you are not worthy. As you progress further in your career, maintaining that relationship with who you are outside of medicine can be your armor against burnout.

“Where are you really from?”

When I tell patients I am from Casper, Wyoming—wh ere I have lived the majority of my life—it’smet with disbelief. The subtext: YOU can’t be from THERE.

I didn’t used to think much of comments like this, but as I have continued to hear them, I find myself feeling tired—tired of explaining myself, tired of being treated differently than my colleagues, and tired of justifying myself. My experiences as a woman of color sadly are not uncommon in medicine.

Sara Martinez-Garcia, BA

Racial bias and racism are steeped in the culture of medicine—from the medical school admissions process^1,2 to the medical training itself.³ More than half of medical students who identify as underrepresented in medicine (UIM) experience microaggressions.⁴ Experiencing racism and sexism in the learning environment can lead to burnout, and microaggressions promote feelings of self-doubt and isolation. Medical students who experience microaggressions are more likely to report feelings of burnout and impaired learning.⁴ These experiences can leave one feeling as if “You do not belong” and “You are unworthy of being in this position.”

Addressing physician burnout already is complex, and addressing burnout caused by inequity, bias, and racism is even more so. In an ideal world, we would eliminate inequity, bias, and racism in medicine through institutional and individual actions. There has been movement to do so. For example, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), which oversees standards for US resident and fellow training, launched ACGME Equity Matters (https://www.acgme.org/what-we-do/diversity-equity-and-inclusion/ACGME-Equity-Matters/), an initiative aimed to improve diversity, equity, and antiracism practices within graduate medical eduation. However, we know that education alone isn’t enough to fix this monumental problem. Traditional diversity training as we have known it has never been demonstrated to contribute to lasting changes in behavior; it takes much more extensive and complex interventions to meaningfully reduce bias.⁵ In the meantime, we need action. As a medical community, we need to be better about not turning the other way when we see these things happening in our classrooms and in our hospitals. As individuals, we must self-reflect on the role that we each play in contributing to or combatting injustices and seek out bystander training to empower us to speak out against acts of bias such as sexism or racism. Whether it is supporting a fellow colleague or speaking out against an inappropriate interaction, we can all do our part. A very brief list of actions and resources to support our UIM students and colleagues are listed in the Table; those interested in more in-depth resources are encouraged to explore the Association of American Medical Colleges Diversity and Inclusion Toolkit (https://www.aamc.org/professional-development/affinity-groups/cfas/diversity-inclusion-toolkit/resources).

We can’t change the culture of medicine quickly or even in our lifetime. In the meantime, those who are UIM will continue to experience these events that erode our well-being. They will continue to need support. Discussing mental health has long been stigmatized, and physicians are no exception. Many physicians are hesitant to discuss mental health issues out of fear of judgement and perceived or even real repercussions on their careers.¹⁰ However, times are changing and evolving with the current generation of medical students. It’s no secret that medicine is stressful. Most medical schools provide free counseling services, which lowers the barrier for discussions of mental health from the beginning. Making talk about mental health just as normal as talking about other aspects of health takes away the fear that “something is wrong with me” if someone seeks out counseling and mental health services. Faculty should actively check in and maintain open lines of communication, which can be invaluable for UIM students and their training experience. Creating an environment where trainees can be real and honest about the struggles they face in and out of the classroom can make everyone feel like they are not alone.

Addressing burnout in medicine is going to require an all-hands-on-deck approach. At an institutional level, there is a lot of room for improvement—improving systems for physicians so they are able to operate at their highest level (eg, addressing the burdens of prior authorizations and the electronic medical record), setting reasonable expectations around productivity, and creating work structures that respect work-life balance.¹¹ But what can we do for ourselves? We believe that one of the most important ways to protect ourselves from burnout is to remember why. As a medical student, there is enormous pressure—pressure to learn an enormous volume of information, pass examinations, get involved in extracurricular activities, make connections, and seek research opportunities, while also cooking healthy food, grocery shopping, maintaining relationships with loved ones, and generally taking care of oneself. At times it can feel as if our lives outside of medical school are not important enough or valuable enough to make time for, but the pieces of our identity outside of medicine are what shape us into who we are today and are the roots of our purpose in medicine. Sometimes you can feel the most motivated, valued, and supported when you make time to have dinner with friends, call a family member, or simply spend time alone in the outdoors. Who you are and how you got to this point in your life are your identity. Reminding yourself of that can help when experiencing microaggressions or when that voice tries to tell you that you are not worthy. As you progress further in your career, maintaining that relationship with who you are outside of medicine can be your armor against burnout.

“Where are you really from?”

When I tell patients I am from Casper, Wyoming—wh ere I have lived the majority of my life—it’smet with disbelief. The subtext: YOU can’t be from THERE.

I didn’t used to think much of comments like this, but as I have continued to hear them, I find myself feeling tired—tired of explaining myself, tired of being treated differently than my colleagues, and tired of justifying myself. My experiences as a woman of color sadly are not uncommon in medicine.

Sara Martinez-Garcia, BA

Racial bias and racism are steeped in the culture of medicine—from the medical school admissions process^1,2 to the medical training itself.³ More than half of medical students who identify as underrepresented in medicine (UIM) experience microaggressions.⁴ Experiencing racism and sexism in the learning environment can lead to burnout, and microaggressions promote feelings of self-doubt and isolation. Medical students who experience microaggressions are more likely to report feelings of burnout and impaired learning.⁴ These experiences can leave one feeling as if “You do not belong” and “You are unworthy of being in this position.”

Addressing physician burnout already is complex, and addressing burnout caused by inequity, bias, and racism is even more so. In an ideal world, we would eliminate inequity, bias, and racism in medicine through institutional and individual actions. There has been movement to do so. For example, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), which oversees standards for US resident and fellow training, launched ACGME Equity Matters (https://www.acgme.org/what-we-do/diversity-equity-and-inclusion/ACGME-Equity-Matters/), an initiative aimed to improve diversity, equity, and antiracism practices within graduate medical eduation. However, we know that education alone isn’t enough to fix this monumental problem. Traditional diversity training as we have known it has never been demonstrated to contribute to lasting changes in behavior; it takes much more extensive and complex interventions to meaningfully reduce bias.⁵ In the meantime, we need action. As a medical community, we need to be better about not turning the other way when we see these things happening in our classrooms and in our hospitals. As individuals, we must self-reflect on the role that we each play in contributing to or combatting injustices and seek out bystander training to empower us to speak out against acts of bias such as sexism or racism. Whether it is supporting a fellow colleague or speaking out against an inappropriate interaction, we can all do our part. A very brief list of actions and resources to support our UIM students and colleagues are listed in the Table; those interested in more in-depth resources are encouraged to explore the Association of American Medical Colleges Diversity and Inclusion Toolkit (https://www.aamc.org/professional-development/affinity-groups/cfas/diversity-inclusion-toolkit/resources).

We can’t change the culture of medicine quickly or even in our lifetime. In the meantime, those who are UIM will continue to experience these events that erode our well-being. They will continue to need support. Discussing mental health has long been stigmatized, and physicians are no exception. Many physicians are hesitant to discuss mental health issues out of fear of judgement and perceived or even real repercussions on their careers.¹⁰ However, times are changing and evolving with the current generation of medical students. It’s no secret that medicine is stressful. Most medical schools provide free counseling services, which lowers the barrier for discussions of mental health from the beginning. Making talk about mental health just as normal as talking about other aspects of health takes away the fear that “something is wrong with me” if someone seeks out counseling and mental health services. Faculty should actively check in and maintain open lines of communication, which can be invaluable for UIM students and their training experience. Creating an environment where trainees can be real and honest about the struggles they face in and out of the classroom can make everyone feel like they are not alone.

Addressing burnout in medicine is going to require an all-hands-on-deck approach. At an institutional level, there is a lot of room for improvement—improving systems for physicians so they are able to operate at their highest level (eg, addressing the burdens of prior authorizations and the electronic medical record), setting reasonable expectations around productivity, and creating work structures that respect work-life balance.¹¹ But what can we do for ourselves? We believe that one of the most important ways to protect ourselves from burnout is to remember why. As a medical student, there is enormous pressure—pressure to learn an enormous volume of information, pass examinations, get involved in extracurricular activities, make connections, and seek research opportunities, while also cooking healthy food, grocery shopping, maintaining relationships with loved ones, and generally taking care of oneself. At times it can feel as if our lives outside of medical school are not important enough or valuable enough to make time for, but the pieces of our identity outside of medicine are what shape us into who we are today and are the roots of our purpose in medicine. Sometimes you can feel the most motivated, valued, and supported when you make time to have dinner with friends, call a family member, or simply spend time alone in the outdoors. Who you are and how you got to this point in your life are your identity. Reminding yourself of that can help when experiencing microaggressions or when that voice tries to tell you that you are not worthy. As you progress further in your career, maintaining that relationship with who you are outside of medicine can be your armor against burnout.

Teledermatology is an effective patient care model for the delivery of high-quality dermatologic care.¹ Teledermatology can occur using synchronous, asynchronous, and hybrid models of care. In asynchronous visits (AVs), patients or health professionals submit photographs and information for dermatologists to review and provide treatment recommendations. With synchronous visits (SVs), patients have a visit with a dermatology health professional in real time via live video conferencing software. Hybrid models incorporate asynchronous strategies for patient intake forms and skin photograph submissions as well as synchronous methods for live video consultation in a single visit.¹ However, remarkable inequities in internet access limit telemedicine usage among medically marginalized patient populations, including racialized, elderly, and low socioeconomic status groups.²

Synchronous visits, a relatively newer teledermatology format, allow for communication with dermatology professionals from the convenience of a patient’s selected location. The live interaction of SVs allows dermatology professionals to answer questions, provide treatment recommendations, and build therapeutic relationships with patients. Concerns for dermatologist reimbursement, malpractice/liability, and technological challenges stalled large-scale uptake of teledermatology platforms.³ The COVID-19 pandemic led to a drastic increase in teledermatology usage of approximately 587.2%, largely due to public safety measures and Medicaid reimbursement parity between SV and in-office visits (IVs).^3,4

With the implementation of SVs as a patient care model, we investigated the demographics of patients who utilized SVs, AVs, or IVs, and we propose strategies to promote equity in dermatologic care access.

Methods

This study was approved by the University of Pittsburgh institutional review board (STUDY20110043). We performed a retrospective electronic medical record review of deidentified data from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, a tertiary care center in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, with an established asynchronous teledermatology program. Hybrid SVs were integrated into the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center patient care visit options in March 2020. Patients were instructed to upload photographs of their skin conditions prior to SV appointments. The study included visits occurring between July and December 2020. Visit types included SVs, AVs, and IVs.

We analyzed the initial dermatology visits of 17,130 patients aged 17.5 years and older. Recorded data included diagnosis, age, sex, race, ethnicity, and insurance type for each visit type. Patients without a reported race (990 patients) or ethnicity (1712 patients) were excluded from analysis of race/ethnicity data. Patient zip codes were compared with the zip codes of Allegheny County municipalities as reported by the Allegheny County Elections Division.

Statistical Analysis—Descriptive statistics were calculated; frequency with percentage was used to report categorical variables, and the mean (SD) was used for normally distributed continuous variables. Univariate analysis was performed using the χ² test for categorical variables. One-way analysis of variance was used to compare age among visit types. Statistical significance was defined as P<.05. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 24 (IBM Corp) was used for all statistical analyses.

Results

In our study population, 81.2% (13,916) of patients were residents of Allegheny County, where 51.6% of residents are female and 81.4% are older than 18 years according to data from 2020.⁵ The racial and ethnic demographics of Allegheny County were 13.4% African American/Black, 0.2% American Indian/Alaska Native, 4.2% Asian, 2.3% Hispanic/Latino, and 79.6% White. The percentage of residents who identified as Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander was reported to be greater than 0% but less than 0.5%.⁵

In our analysis, IVs were the most utilized visit type, accounting for 71.5% (12,240) of visits, followed by 15.0% (2577) for SVs and 13.5% (2313) for AVs. The mean age (SD) of IV patients was 51.0 (18.8) years compared with 39.9 (16.9) years for SV patients and 37.5 (14.3) years for AV patients (eTable). The majority of patients for all visits were female: 62.1% (7599) for IVs, 71.4% (1652) for AVs, and 72.8% (1877) for SVs. The largest racial or ethnic group for all visit types included White patients (83.8% [13,524] of all patients), followed by Black (12.4% [2007]), Hispanic/Latino (1.4% [209]), Asian (3.4% [555]), American Indian/Alaska Native (0.2% [35]), and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander patients (0.1% [19]).

Asian patients, who comprised 4.2% of Allegheny County residents,⁵ accounted for 2.7% (334) of IVs, 4.9% (113) of AVs, and 4.2% (108) of SVs. Black patients, who were reported as 13.4% of the Allegheny County population,⁵ were more likely to utilize SVs (19% [490])compared with AVs (7.5% [174]) and IVs (11% [1343]). Hispanic/Latino patients had a disproportionally lower utilization of dermatologic care in all settings, comprising 1.4% (209) of all patients in our study compared with 2.3% of Allegheny County residents.⁵ White patients, who comprised 79.6% of Allegheny County residents, accounted for 81.1% (9928) of IVs, 67.4% (1737) of SVs, and 80.4% (1859) of AVs. There was no significant difference in the percentage of American Indian/Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander patients among visit types.

The 3 most common diagnoses for IVs were skin cancer screening, seborrheic keratosis, and melanocytic nevus (Table 1). Skin cancer screening was the most common diagnosis, accounting for 12.2% (8530) of 69,812 IVs. The 3 most common diagnoses for SVs were acne vulgaris, dermatitis, and psoriasis. The 3 most common diagnoses for AVs were acne vulgaris, dermatitis, and perioral dermatitis.

Private insurance was the most common insurance type among all patients (71.4% [12,224])(Table 2). A higher percentage of patients with Medicaid insurance (17.9% [461]) utilized SVs compared with AVs (10.1% [233]) and IVs (11.3% 1385]). Similarly, a higher percentage of patients with no insurance or no insurance listed were seen via SVs (12.5% [322]) compared with AVs (5.1% [117]) and IVs (1.7% [203]). Patients with Medicare insurance used IVs (15.4% [1886]) more than SVs (6.0% [155]) or AVs (2.6% [60]). There was no significant difference among visit type usage for patients with public insurance.

Comment

Teledermatology Benefits—In this retrospective review of medical records of patients who obtained dermatologic care after the implementation of SVs at our institution, we found a proportionally higher use of SVs among Black patients, patients with Medicaid, and patients who are underinsured. Benefits of teledermatology include decreases in patient transportation and associated costs, time away from work or home, and need for childcare.⁶ The SV format provides the additional advantage of direct live interaction and the development of a patient-physician or patient–physician assistant relationship. Although the prerequisite technology, internet, and broadband connectivity preclude use of teledermatology for many vulnerable patients,² its convenience ultimately may reduce inequities in access.

Disparities in Dermatologic Care—Hispanic ethnicity and male sex are among described patient demographics associated with decreased rates of outpatient dermatologic care.⁷ We reported disparities in dermatologic care utilization across all visit types among Hispanic patients and males. Patients identifying as Hispanic/Latino composed only 1.4% (n=209) of our study population compared with 2.3% of Allegheny County residents.⁵ During our study period, most patients seen were female, accounting for 62.1% to 72.8% of visits, compared with 51.6% of Allegheny County residents.⁵ These disparities in dermatologic care use may have implications for increased skin-associated morbidity and provide impetus for dermatologists to increase engagement with these patient groups.

Characteristics of Patients Using Teledermatology—Patients using SVs and AVs were significantly younger (mean age [SD], 39.9 [16.9] years and 37.5 [14.3] years, respectively) compared with those using IVs (51.0 [18.8] years). This finding reflects known digital knowledge barriers among older patients.^8,9 The synchronous communication format of SVs simulates the traditional visit style of IVs, which may be preferable for some patients. Continued patient education and advocacy for broadband access may increase teledermatology use among older patients and patients with limited technology resources.⁸

Teledermatology visits were used most frequently for acne and dermatitis, while IVs were used for skin cancer screenings and examination of concerning lesions. This usage pattern is consistent with a previously described consensus among dermatologists on the conditions most amenable to teledermatology evaluation.³

Medicaid reimbursement parity for SVs is in effect nationally until the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency declaration in the United States.¹⁰ As of February 2023, the public health emergency declaration has been renewed 12 times since January 2020, with the most recent renewal on January 11, 2023.¹¹ As of January 2023, 21 states have enacted legislation providing permanent reimbursement parity for SV services. Six additional states have some payment parity in place, each with its own qualifying criteria, and 23 states have no payment parity.¹² Only 25 Medicaid programs currently provide reimbursement for AV services.¹³

Study Limitations—Our study was limited by lack of data on patients who are multiracial and those who identify as nonbinary and transgender. Because of the low numbers of Hispanic patients associated with each race category and a high number of patients who did not report an ethnicity or race, race and ethnicity data were analyzed separately. For SVs, patients were instructed to upload photographs prior to their visit; however, the percentage of patients who uploaded photographs was not analyzed.

Conclusion

Expansion of teledermatology services, including SVs and AVs, patient outreach and education, advocacy for broadband access, and Medicaid payment parity, may improve dermatologic care access for medically marginalized groups. Teledermatology has the potential to serve as an effective health care option for patients who are racially minoritized, older, and underinsured. To further assess the effectiveness of teledermatology, we plan to analyze the number of SVs and AVs that were referred to IVs. Future studies also will investigate the impact of implementing patient education and patient-reported outcomes of teledermatology visits.

Teledermatology is an effective patient care model for the delivery of high-quality dermatologic care.¹ Teledermatology can occur using synchronous, asynchronous, and hybrid models of care. In asynchronous visits (AVs), patients or health professionals submit photographs and information for dermatologists to review and provide treatment recommendations. With synchronous visits (SVs), patients have a visit with a dermatology health professional in real time via live video conferencing software. Hybrid models incorporate asynchronous strategies for patient intake forms and skin photograph submissions as well as synchronous methods for live video consultation in a single visit.¹ However, remarkable inequities in internet access limit telemedicine usage among medically marginalized patient populations, including racialized, elderly, and low socioeconomic status groups.²

Synchronous visits, a relatively newer teledermatology format, allow for communication with dermatology professionals from the convenience of a patient’s selected location. The live interaction of SVs allows dermatology professionals to answer questions, provide treatment recommendations, and build therapeutic relationships with patients. Concerns for dermatologist reimbursement, malpractice/liability, and technological challenges stalled large-scale uptake of teledermatology platforms.³ The COVID-19 pandemic led to a drastic increase in teledermatology usage of approximately 587.2%, largely due to public safety measures and Medicaid reimbursement parity between SV and in-office visits (IVs).^3,4

With the implementation of SVs as a patient care model, we investigated the demographics of patients who utilized SVs, AVs, or IVs, and we propose strategies to promote equity in dermatologic care access.

Methods

This study was approved by the University of Pittsburgh institutional review board (STUDY20110043). We performed a retrospective electronic medical record review of deidentified data from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, a tertiary care center in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, with an established asynchronous teledermatology program. Hybrid SVs were integrated into the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center patient care visit options in March 2020. Patients were instructed to upload photographs of their skin conditions prior to SV appointments. The study included visits occurring between July and December 2020. Visit types included SVs, AVs, and IVs.

We analyzed the initial dermatology visits of 17,130 patients aged 17.5 years and older. Recorded data included diagnosis, age, sex, race, ethnicity, and insurance type for each visit type. Patients without a reported race (990 patients) or ethnicity (1712 patients) were excluded from analysis of race/ethnicity data. Patient zip codes were compared with the zip codes of Allegheny County municipalities as reported by the Allegheny County Elections Division.

Statistical Analysis—Descriptive statistics were calculated; frequency with percentage was used to report categorical variables, and the mean (SD) was used for normally distributed continuous variables. Univariate analysis was performed using the χ² test for categorical variables. One-way analysis of variance was used to compare age among visit types. Statistical significance was defined as P<.05. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 24 (IBM Corp) was used for all statistical analyses.

Results

In our study population, 81.2% (13,916) of patients were residents of Allegheny County, where 51.6% of residents are female and 81.4% are older than 18 years according to data from 2020.⁵ The racial and ethnic demographics of Allegheny County were 13.4% African American/Black, 0.2% American Indian/Alaska Native, 4.2% Asian, 2.3% Hispanic/Latino, and 79.6% White. The percentage of residents who identified as Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander was reported to be greater than 0% but less than 0.5%.⁵

In our analysis, IVs were the most utilized visit type, accounting for 71.5% (12,240) of visits, followed by 15.0% (2577) for SVs and 13.5% (2313) for AVs. The mean age (SD) of IV patients was 51.0 (18.8) years compared with 39.9 (16.9) years for SV patients and 37.5 (14.3) years for AV patients (eTable). The majority of patients for all visits were female: 62.1% (7599) for IVs, 71.4% (1652) for AVs, and 72.8% (1877) for SVs. The largest racial or ethnic group for all visit types included White patients (83.8% [13,524] of all patients), followed by Black (12.4% [2007]), Hispanic/Latino (1.4% [209]), Asian (3.4% [555]), American Indian/Alaska Native (0.2% [35]), and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander patients (0.1% [19]).

Asian patients, who comprised 4.2% of Allegheny County residents,⁵ accounted for 2.7% (334) of IVs, 4.9% (113) of AVs, and 4.2% (108) of SVs. Black patients, who were reported as 13.4% of the Allegheny County population,⁵ were more likely to utilize SVs (19% [490])compared with AVs (7.5% [174]) and IVs (11% [1343]). Hispanic/Latino patients had a disproportionally lower utilization of dermatologic care in all settings, comprising 1.4% (209) of all patients in our study compared with 2.3% of Allegheny County residents.⁵ White patients, who comprised 79.6% of Allegheny County residents, accounted for 81.1% (9928) of IVs, 67.4% (1737) of SVs, and 80.4% (1859) of AVs. There was no significant difference in the percentage of American Indian/Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander patients among visit types.

The 3 most common diagnoses for IVs were skin cancer screening, seborrheic keratosis, and melanocytic nevus (Table 1). Skin cancer screening was the most common diagnosis, accounting for 12.2% (8530) of 69,812 IVs. The 3 most common diagnoses for SVs were acne vulgaris, dermatitis, and psoriasis. The 3 most common diagnoses for AVs were acne vulgaris, dermatitis, and perioral dermatitis.

Private insurance was the most common insurance type among all patients (71.4% [12,224])(Table 2). A higher percentage of patients with Medicaid insurance (17.9% [461]) utilized SVs compared with AVs (10.1% [233]) and IVs (11.3% 1385]). Similarly, a higher percentage of patients with no insurance or no insurance listed were seen via SVs (12.5% [322]) compared with AVs (5.1% [117]) and IVs (1.7% [203]). Patients with Medicare insurance used IVs (15.4% [1886]) more than SVs (6.0% [155]) or AVs (2.6% [60]). There was no significant difference among visit type usage for patients with public insurance.

Comment

Teledermatology Benefits—In this retrospective review of medical records of patients who obtained dermatologic care after the implementation of SVs at our institution, we found a proportionally higher use of SVs among Black patients, patients with Medicaid, and patients who are underinsured. Benefits of teledermatology include decreases in patient transportation and associated costs, time away from work or home, and need for childcare.⁶ The SV format provides the additional advantage of direct live interaction and the development of a patient-physician or patient–physician assistant relationship. Although the prerequisite technology, internet, and broadband connectivity preclude use of teledermatology for many vulnerable patients,² its convenience ultimately may reduce inequities in access.

Disparities in Dermatologic Care—Hispanic ethnicity and male sex are among described patient demographics associated with decreased rates of outpatient dermatologic care.⁷ We reported disparities in dermatologic care utilization across all visit types among Hispanic patients and males. Patients identifying as Hispanic/Latino composed only 1.4% (n=209) of our study population compared with 2.3% of Allegheny County residents.⁵ During our study period, most patients seen were female, accounting for 62.1% to 72.8% of visits, compared with 51.6% of Allegheny County residents.⁵ These disparities in dermatologic care use may have implications for increased skin-associated morbidity and provide impetus for dermatologists to increase engagement with these patient groups.

Characteristics of Patients Using Teledermatology—Patients using SVs and AVs were significantly younger (mean age [SD], 39.9 [16.9] years and 37.5 [14.3] years, respectively) compared with those using IVs (51.0 [18.8] years). This finding reflects known digital knowledge barriers among older patients.^8,9 The synchronous communication format of SVs simulates the traditional visit style of IVs, which may be preferable for some patients. Continued patient education and advocacy for broadband access may increase teledermatology use among older patients and patients with limited technology resources.⁸

Teledermatology visits were used most frequently for acne and dermatitis, while IVs were used for skin cancer screenings and examination of concerning lesions. This usage pattern is consistent with a previously described consensus among dermatologists on the conditions most amenable to teledermatology evaluation.³

Medicaid reimbursement parity for SVs is in effect nationally until the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency declaration in the United States.¹⁰ As of February 2023, the public health emergency declaration has been renewed 12 times since January 2020, with the most recent renewal on January 11, 2023.¹¹ As of January 2023, 21 states have enacted legislation providing permanent reimbursement parity for SV services. Six additional states have some payment parity in place, each with its own qualifying criteria, and 23 states have no payment parity.¹² Only 25 Medicaid programs currently provide reimbursement for AV services.¹³

Study Limitations—Our study was limited by lack of data on patients who are multiracial and those who identify as nonbinary and transgender. Because of the low numbers of Hispanic patients associated with each race category and a high number of patients who did not report an ethnicity or race, race and ethnicity data were analyzed separately. For SVs, patients were instructed to upload photographs prior to their visit; however, the percentage of patients who uploaded photographs was not analyzed.

Conclusion

Expansion of teledermatology services, including SVs and AVs, patient outreach and education, advocacy for broadband access, and Medicaid payment parity, may improve dermatologic care access for medically marginalized groups. Teledermatology has the potential to serve as an effective health care option for patients who are racially minoritized, older, and underinsured. To further assess the effectiveness of teledermatology, we plan to analyze the number of SVs and AVs that were referred to IVs. Future studies also will investigate the impact of implementing patient education and patient-reported outcomes of teledermatology visits.

Teledermatology is an effective patient care model for the delivery of high-quality dermatologic care.¹ Teledermatology can occur using synchronous, asynchronous, and hybrid models of care. In asynchronous visits (AVs), patients or health professionals submit photographs and information for dermatologists to review and provide treatment recommendations. With synchronous visits (SVs), patients have a visit with a dermatology health professional in real time via live video conferencing software. Hybrid models incorporate asynchronous strategies for patient intake forms and skin photograph submissions as well as synchronous methods for live video consultation in a single visit.¹ However, remarkable inequities in internet access limit telemedicine usage among medically marginalized patient populations, including racialized, elderly, and low socioeconomic status groups.²

Synchronous visits, a relatively newer teledermatology format, allow for communication with dermatology professionals from the convenience of a patient’s selected location. The live interaction of SVs allows dermatology professionals to answer questions, provide treatment recommendations, and build therapeutic relationships with patients. Concerns for dermatologist reimbursement, malpractice/liability, and technological challenges stalled large-scale uptake of teledermatology platforms.³ The COVID-19 pandemic led to a drastic increase in teledermatology usage of approximately 587.2%, largely due to public safety measures and Medicaid reimbursement parity between SV and in-office visits (IVs).^3,4

With the implementation of SVs as a patient care model, we investigated the demographics of patients who utilized SVs, AVs, or IVs, and we propose strategies to promote equity in dermatologic care access.

Methods

This study was approved by the University of Pittsburgh institutional review board (STUDY20110043). We performed a retrospective electronic medical record review of deidentified data from the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, a tertiary care center in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, with an established asynchronous teledermatology program. Hybrid SVs were integrated into the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center patient care visit options in March 2020. Patients were instructed to upload photographs of their skin conditions prior to SV appointments. The study included visits occurring between July and December 2020. Visit types included SVs, AVs, and IVs.

We analyzed the initial dermatology visits of 17,130 patients aged 17.5 years and older. Recorded data included diagnosis, age, sex, race, ethnicity, and insurance type for each visit type. Patients without a reported race (990 patients) or ethnicity (1712 patients) were excluded from analysis of race/ethnicity data. Patient zip codes were compared with the zip codes of Allegheny County municipalities as reported by the Allegheny County Elections Division.

Statistical Analysis—Descriptive statistics were calculated; frequency with percentage was used to report categorical variables, and the mean (SD) was used for normally distributed continuous variables. Univariate analysis was performed using the χ² test for categorical variables. One-way analysis of variance was used to compare age among visit types. Statistical significance was defined as P<.05. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 24 (IBM Corp) was used for all statistical analyses.

Results

In our study population, 81.2% (13,916) of patients were residents of Allegheny County, where 51.6% of residents are female and 81.4% are older than 18 years according to data from 2020.⁵ The racial and ethnic demographics of Allegheny County were 13.4% African American/Black, 0.2% American Indian/Alaska Native, 4.2% Asian, 2.3% Hispanic/Latino, and 79.6% White. The percentage of residents who identified as Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander was reported to be greater than 0% but less than 0.5%.⁵

In our analysis, IVs were the most utilized visit type, accounting for 71.5% (12,240) of visits, followed by 15.0% (2577) for SVs and 13.5% (2313) for AVs. The mean age (SD) of IV patients was 51.0 (18.8) years compared with 39.9 (16.9) years for SV patients and 37.5 (14.3) years for AV patients (eTable). The majority of patients for all visits were female: 62.1% (7599) for IVs, 71.4% (1652) for AVs, and 72.8% (1877) for SVs. The largest racial or ethnic group for all visit types included White patients (83.8% [13,524] of all patients), followed by Black (12.4% [2007]), Hispanic/Latino (1.4% [209]), Asian (3.4% [555]), American Indian/Alaska Native (0.2% [35]), and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander patients (0.1% [19]).

Asian patients, who comprised 4.2% of Allegheny County residents,⁵ accounted for 2.7% (334) of IVs, 4.9% (113) of AVs, and 4.2% (108) of SVs. Black patients, who were reported as 13.4% of the Allegheny County population,⁵ were more likely to utilize SVs (19% [490])compared with AVs (7.5% [174]) and IVs (11% [1343]). Hispanic/Latino patients had a disproportionally lower utilization of dermatologic care in all settings, comprising 1.4% (209) of all patients in our study compared with 2.3% of Allegheny County residents.⁵ White patients, who comprised 79.6% of Allegheny County residents, accounted for 81.1% (9928) of IVs, 67.4% (1737) of SVs, and 80.4% (1859) of AVs. There was no significant difference in the percentage of American Indian/Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander patients among visit types.

The 3 most common diagnoses for IVs were skin cancer screening, seborrheic keratosis, and melanocytic nevus (Table 1). Skin cancer screening was the most common diagnosis, accounting for 12.2% (8530) of 69,812 IVs. The 3 most common diagnoses for SVs were acne vulgaris, dermatitis, and psoriasis. The 3 most common diagnoses for AVs were acne vulgaris, dermatitis, and perioral dermatitis.

Private insurance was the most common insurance type among all patients (71.4% [12,224])(Table 2). A higher percentage of patients with Medicaid insurance (17.9% [461]) utilized SVs compared with AVs (10.1% [233]) and IVs (11.3% 1385]). Similarly, a higher percentage of patients with no insurance or no insurance listed were seen via SVs (12.5% [322]) compared with AVs (5.1% [117]) and IVs (1.7% [203]). Patients with Medicare insurance used IVs (15.4% [1886]) more than SVs (6.0% [155]) or AVs (2.6% [60]). There was no significant difference among visit type usage for patients with public insurance.

Comment

Teledermatology Benefits—In this retrospective review of medical records of patients who obtained dermatologic care after the implementation of SVs at our institution, we found a proportionally higher use of SVs among Black patients, patients with Medicaid, and patients who are underinsured. Benefits of teledermatology include decreases in patient transportation and associated costs, time away from work or home, and need for childcare.⁶ The SV format provides the additional advantage of direct live interaction and the development of a patient-physician or patient–physician assistant relationship. Although the prerequisite technology, internet, and broadband connectivity preclude use of teledermatology for many vulnerable patients,² its convenience ultimately may reduce inequities in access.

Disparities in Dermatologic Care—Hispanic ethnicity and male sex are among described patient demographics associated with decreased rates of outpatient dermatologic care.⁷ We reported disparities in dermatologic care utilization across all visit types among Hispanic patients and males. Patients identifying as Hispanic/Latino composed only 1.4% (n=209) of our study population compared with 2.3% of Allegheny County residents.⁵ During our study period, most patients seen were female, accounting for 62.1% to 72.8% of visits, compared with 51.6% of Allegheny County residents.⁵ These disparities in dermatologic care use may have implications for increased skin-associated morbidity and provide impetus for dermatologists to increase engagement with these patient groups.

Characteristics of Patients Using Teledermatology—Patients using SVs and AVs were significantly younger (mean age [SD], 39.9 [16.9] years and 37.5 [14.3] years, respectively) compared with those using IVs (51.0 [18.8] years). This finding reflects known digital knowledge barriers among older patients.^8,9 The synchronous communication format of SVs simulates the traditional visit style of IVs, which may be preferable for some patients. Continued patient education and advocacy for broadband access may increase teledermatology use among older patients and patients with limited technology resources.⁸

Teledermatology visits were used most frequently for acne and dermatitis, while IVs were used for skin cancer screenings and examination of concerning lesions. This usage pattern is consistent with a previously described consensus among dermatologists on the conditions most amenable to teledermatology evaluation.³

Medicaid reimbursement parity for SVs is in effect nationally until the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency declaration in the United States.¹⁰ As of February 2023, the public health emergency declaration has been renewed 12 times since January 2020, with the most recent renewal on January 11, 2023.¹¹ As of January 2023, 21 states have enacted legislation providing permanent reimbursement parity for SV services. Six additional states have some payment parity in place, each with its own qualifying criteria, and 23 states have no payment parity.¹² Only 25 Medicaid programs currently provide reimbursement for AV services.¹³

Study Limitations—Our study was limited by lack of data on patients who are multiracial and those who identify as nonbinary and transgender. Because of the low numbers of Hispanic patients associated with each race category and a high number of patients who did not report an ethnicity or race, race and ethnicity data were analyzed separately. For SVs, patients were instructed to upload photographs prior to their visit; however, the percentage of patients who uploaded photographs was not analyzed.

Conclusion

Expansion of teledermatology services, including SVs and AVs, patient outreach and education, advocacy for broadband access, and Medicaid payment parity, may improve dermatologic care access for medically marginalized groups. Teledermatology has the potential to serve as an effective health care option for patients who are racially minoritized, older, and underinsured. To further assess the effectiveness of teledermatology, we plan to analyze the number of SVs and AVs that were referred to IVs. Future studies also will investigate the impact of implementing patient education and patient-reported outcomes of teledermatology visits.

HONOLULU – Nearly every day, Candrice R. Heath, MD, spends time during office visits dispelling myths about hair care practices in patients with skin of color. One myth is the idea that not washing hair helps it to grow.

“This is false,” Dr. Heath, director of pediatric dermatology at Temple University, Philadelphia, said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by MedscapeLIVE! With little manipulation, length may be retained, since tightly coiled hair has a higher likelihood of breakage, she said. “But washing the scalp and hair is recommended for tightly coiled hair weekly or every other week. Exclusively co-washing – a technique where hair conditioner is used instead of shampooing – is also not advised due to scalp build-up.”

JGI/Jamie Grill/Getty Images

Other myths she addressed include the following:

“I have a weak spot (or stress spot) on the top of my scalp.” These terms may be used to describe hair on a spot that goes through cycles of breaking off and re-growing. This is false. “If someone were to say that, and we see short hairs on the top of a patient’s scalp, with or without tenderness, pruritus, or pain, we want to recognize that as possibly an early sign of central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia [CCCA],” she said. “We want to pick up cases of CCCA forme fruste [central hair breakage] early.”

Medicated shampoos are helpful for all patients with seborrheic dermatitis. This notion is more complicated. “In theory, medicated shampoos like ketoconazole should be helpful, but if the shampoos are too drying for the hair and they cause further hair breakage, that’s going to be a problem as well,” explained Dr. Heath, who was the senior author of an article on how to address common conditions affecting pediatric and adolescent patients with skin of color. For patients with tightly coiled hair, she recommends applying antifungal shampoos to the scalp only, waiting 5-10 minutes, rinsing, and shampooing the scalp and hair with a moisturizing shampoo and rinsing. They can then condition with a moisturizing conditioner and style their hair as desired.

HONOLULU – Nearly every day, Candrice R. Heath, MD, spends time during office visits dispelling myths about hair care practices in patients with skin of color. One myth is the idea that not washing hair helps it to grow.

“This is false,” Dr. Heath, director of pediatric dermatology at Temple University, Philadelphia, said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by MedscapeLIVE! With little manipulation, length may be retained, since tightly coiled hair has a higher likelihood of breakage, she said. “But washing the scalp and hair is recommended for tightly coiled hair weekly or every other week. Exclusively co-washing – a technique where hair conditioner is used instead of shampooing – is also not advised due to scalp build-up.”

JGI/Jamie Grill/Getty Images

Other myths she addressed include the following:

“I have a weak spot (or stress spot) on the top of my scalp.” These terms may be used to describe hair on a spot that goes through cycles of breaking off and re-growing. This is false. “If someone were to say that, and we see short hairs on the top of a patient’s scalp, with or without tenderness, pruritus, or pain, we want to recognize that as possibly an early sign of central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia [CCCA],” she said. “We want to pick up cases of CCCA forme fruste [central hair breakage] early.”

Medicated shampoos are helpful for all patients with seborrheic dermatitis. This notion is more complicated. “In theory, medicated shampoos like ketoconazole should be helpful, but if the shampoos are too drying for the hair and they cause further hair breakage, that’s going to be a problem as well,” explained Dr. Heath, who was the senior author of an article on how to address common conditions affecting pediatric and adolescent patients with skin of color. For patients with tightly coiled hair, she recommends applying antifungal shampoos to the scalp only, waiting 5-10 minutes, rinsing, and shampooing the scalp and hair with a moisturizing shampoo and rinsing. They can then condition with a moisturizing conditioner and style their hair as desired.

HONOLULU – Nearly every day, Candrice R. Heath, MD, spends time during office visits dispelling myths about hair care practices in patients with skin of color. One myth is the idea that not washing hair helps it to grow.

“This is false,” Dr. Heath, director of pediatric dermatology at Temple University, Philadelphia, said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by MedscapeLIVE! With little manipulation, length may be retained, since tightly coiled hair has a higher likelihood of breakage, she said. “But washing the scalp and hair is recommended for tightly coiled hair weekly or every other week. Exclusively co-washing – a technique where hair conditioner is used instead of shampooing – is also not advised due to scalp build-up.”

JGI/Jamie Grill/Getty Images

Other myths she addressed include the following:

“I have a weak spot (or stress spot) on the top of my scalp.” These terms may be used to describe hair on a spot that goes through cycles of breaking off and re-growing. This is false. “If someone were to say that, and we see short hairs on the top of a patient’s scalp, with or without tenderness, pruritus, or pain, we want to recognize that as possibly an early sign of central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia [CCCA],” she said. “We want to pick up cases of CCCA forme fruste [central hair breakage] early.”

Medicated shampoos are helpful for all patients with seborrheic dermatitis. This notion is more complicated. “In theory, medicated shampoos like ketoconazole should be helpful, but if the shampoos are too drying for the hair and they cause further hair breakage, that’s going to be a problem as well,” explained Dr. Heath, who was the senior author of an article on how to address common conditions affecting pediatric and adolescent patients with skin of color. For patients with tightly coiled hair, she recommends applying antifungal shampoos to the scalp only, waiting 5-10 minutes, rinsing, and shampooing the scalp and hair with a moisturizing shampoo and rinsing. They can then condition with a moisturizing conditioner and style their hair as desired.

Men making speaker introductions at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology were similarly likely to use professional titles regardless of gender, while women making introductions were more likely to use professional titles overall, based on a review of more than 800 videos of last year’s presentations.

“Implicit sex bias in speaker introductions at major medical conferences can foster and drive sex-driven assumptions about the competency of the speaker,” corresponding author Ankur Kalra, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Franciscan Health, Lafayette, Ind., said in an interview. “This is particularly important as recent data have shown a welcome, though gradual increase in the number of women speakers at major cardiology scientific sessions.”

In a research letter published in JACC: Advances, the researchers reviewed 1,696 videos from the ACC meeting held in Washington in April 2022 compiled by ACC Anywhere, and identified the participants as either “introducers” or “speakers.”

The final analysis included 888 speaker-introducer dyads. The introducer population was 49.4% men and 50.6% women; the speaker population included 58.8% men and 41.2% women.

Overall, 77.9% of speakers were addressed professionally in the first mention, and 71.5% were addressed professionally throughout the introduction. When making introductions, full professors were significantly more likely to use nonprofessional address than associate professors, assistant professors, and trainees (28.7% vs. 18.2%, 10.8%, and 0%, respectively).

Regardless of the sex of the speaker, women making introductions were significantly more likely than men to use professional titles for the speaker on first reference and consistently (84.2% vs. 71.5% and 78.2% vs. 64.7%, respectively; P < 0.001 for both).

Men doing introductions used professional forms of address similarly for both men and women speakers on first reference and consistently (72.2% vs. 71.1% and 65.4% vs. 64.3%, respectively).

No significant difference appeared in the use of professional address by women introducing women speakers compared to women introducing men speakers on first reference and consistently (81.9% vs. 86.1% and 75.0% vs. 80.8%, respectively).

“There was no significant association of the formality of introductions with the speaker’s sex and rank,” the researchers noted.

The findings were limited by several factors, including a lack of self-identified sex data, restriction to a binary determination of sex, and a lack of race/ethnicity analysis, the authors noted. In addition, the study could not account for prior familiarity between introducers and speakers that might influence the introduction.
 

Findings show positive trend

Dr. Kalra was surprised by the study findings, but in a good way. “A recent study on speakers presenting at Internal Medicine grand rounds demonstrated significant sex-based differences in using professional titles for formal introductions for women speakers in comparison with men speakers,” he said in an interview. The current study researchers expected to find similar differences.

“To our pleasant surprise, there was no implicit sex bias in introductions at the ACC 22, as there was no significant difference in the use of professional forms of address by men introducers of women speakers compared with men introducers of men speakers,” he said. “Similarly, the percentage of professional forms of address by women introducers was similar for men and women speakers.”
 

Setting an example

“A platform like ACC 22 is a window into the world of cardiovascular disease professionals – it’s a snapshot of who we are and what ethos/principles/values we represent,” said Dr. Kalra. “How we introduce one another is a surrogate marker of the mutual respect we behold for one another; our characters are on display, and the world and our junior colleagues are watching. Modern-day cardiology departments and practices must be completely intolerant to subtle microaggressions. The important take-away for clinicians is that it could be that our surprising findings may be attributed to the increased dialogue on sex disparities in cardiology, which has made physicians more cognizant of subtle microaggressions.”

A larger sample size is needed to replicate the study findings, and Dr. Kalra and colleagues hope to include data from ACC’s 2023 meeting, held with the World Congress of Cardiology in March, for additional research in this area.
 

Time to close inclusion gaps

“The time is now to dive into all previous and current gaps in diversity and inclusion,” Roxana Mehran, MD, said in an interview. “We must understand what the data are, and disseminate and educate all in health care on these issues.”

Dr. Mehran said she was not surprised by the findings of the current study. “This has been my own feeling for many years, watching mostly men be given important roles, such as Grand Rounds Speaking engagements. Now we have the data, and I congratulate the authors for the hard work to dig this out.

“In all aspects, we need to look at the entire talent pool to choose leadership, speakers, and key opinion leaders, as well as principal investigators in clinical trials,” said Dr. Mehran. “This has long been given to our wonderful and talented male colleagues without any effort to look for women, and non-Whites to be given the opportunity to shine and share their talent.”

Looking ahead, “we must remain vigilant and close gaps in all aspects of medicine whether in delivering care, or in the work force; this needs intentional efforts by all.”

The study was funded by makeadent.org and the Ram and Sanjita Kalra Aavishqaar Fund. Dr. Kalra is the CEO and creative director of makeadent.org. The other authors had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Mehran had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Men making speaker introductions at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology were similarly likely to use professional titles regardless of gender, while women making introductions were more likely to use professional titles overall, based on a review of more than 800 videos of last year’s presentations.

“Implicit sex bias in speaker introductions at major medical conferences can foster and drive sex-driven assumptions about the competency of the speaker,” corresponding author Ankur Kalra, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Franciscan Health, Lafayette, Ind., said in an interview. “This is particularly important as recent data have shown a welcome, though gradual increase in the number of women speakers at major cardiology scientific sessions.”

In a research letter published in JACC: Advances, the researchers reviewed 1,696 videos from the ACC meeting held in Washington in April 2022 compiled by ACC Anywhere, and identified the participants as either “introducers” or “speakers.”

The final analysis included 888 speaker-introducer dyads. The introducer population was 49.4% men and 50.6% women; the speaker population included 58.8% men and 41.2% women.

Overall, 77.9% of speakers were addressed professionally in the first mention, and 71.5% were addressed professionally throughout the introduction. When making introductions, full professors were significantly more likely to use nonprofessional address than associate professors, assistant professors, and trainees (28.7% vs. 18.2%, 10.8%, and 0%, respectively).

Regardless of the sex of the speaker, women making introductions were significantly more likely than men to use professional titles for the speaker on first reference and consistently (84.2% vs. 71.5% and 78.2% vs. 64.7%, respectively; P < 0.001 for both).

Men doing introductions used professional forms of address similarly for both men and women speakers on first reference and consistently (72.2% vs. 71.1% and 65.4% vs. 64.3%, respectively).

No significant difference appeared in the use of professional address by women introducing women speakers compared to women introducing men speakers on first reference and consistently (81.9% vs. 86.1% and 75.0% vs. 80.8%, respectively).

“There was no significant association of the formality of introductions with the speaker’s sex and rank,” the researchers noted.

The findings were limited by several factors, including a lack of self-identified sex data, restriction to a binary determination of sex, and a lack of race/ethnicity analysis, the authors noted. In addition, the study could not account for prior familiarity between introducers and speakers that might influence the introduction.
 

Findings show positive trend

Dr. Kalra was surprised by the study findings, but in a good way. “A recent study on speakers presenting at Internal Medicine grand rounds demonstrated significant sex-based differences in using professional titles for formal introductions for women speakers in comparison with men speakers,” he said in an interview. The current study researchers expected to find similar differences.

“To our pleasant surprise, there was no implicit sex bias in introductions at the ACC 22, as there was no significant difference in the use of professional forms of address by men introducers of women speakers compared with men introducers of men speakers,” he said. “Similarly, the percentage of professional forms of address by women introducers was similar for men and women speakers.”
 

Setting an example

“A platform like ACC 22 is a window into the world of cardiovascular disease professionals – it’s a snapshot of who we are and what ethos/principles/values we represent,” said Dr. Kalra. “How we introduce one another is a surrogate marker of the mutual respect we behold for one another; our characters are on display, and the world and our junior colleagues are watching. Modern-day cardiology departments and practices must be completely intolerant to subtle microaggressions. The important take-away for clinicians is that it could be that our surprising findings may be attributed to the increased dialogue on sex disparities in cardiology, which has made physicians more cognizant of subtle microaggressions.”

A larger sample size is needed to replicate the study findings, and Dr. Kalra and colleagues hope to include data from ACC’s 2023 meeting, held with the World Congress of Cardiology in March, for additional research in this area.
 

Time to close inclusion gaps

“The time is now to dive into all previous and current gaps in diversity and inclusion,” Roxana Mehran, MD, said in an interview. “We must understand what the data are, and disseminate and educate all in health care on these issues.”

Dr. Mehran said she was not surprised by the findings of the current study. “This has been my own feeling for many years, watching mostly men be given important roles, such as Grand Rounds Speaking engagements. Now we have the data, and I congratulate the authors for the hard work to dig this out.

“In all aspects, we need to look at the entire talent pool to choose leadership, speakers, and key opinion leaders, as well as principal investigators in clinical trials,” said Dr. Mehran. “This has long been given to our wonderful and talented male colleagues without any effort to look for women, and non-Whites to be given the opportunity to shine and share their talent.”

Looking ahead, “we must remain vigilant and close gaps in all aspects of medicine whether in delivering care, or in the work force; this needs intentional efforts by all.”

The study was funded by makeadent.org and the Ram and Sanjita Kalra Aavishqaar Fund. Dr. Kalra is the CEO and creative director of makeadent.org. The other authors had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Mehran had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Men making speaker introductions at the 2022 annual scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology were similarly likely to use professional titles regardless of gender, while women making introductions were more likely to use professional titles overall, based on a review of more than 800 videos of last year’s presentations.

“Implicit sex bias in speaker introductions at major medical conferences can foster and drive sex-driven assumptions about the competency of the speaker,” corresponding author Ankur Kalra, MD, an interventional cardiologist at Franciscan Health, Lafayette, Ind., said in an interview. “This is particularly important as recent data have shown a welcome, though gradual increase in the number of women speakers at major cardiology scientific sessions.”

In a research letter published in JACC: Advances, the researchers reviewed 1,696 videos from the ACC meeting held in Washington in April 2022 compiled by ACC Anywhere, and identified the participants as either “introducers” or “speakers.”

The final analysis included 888 speaker-introducer dyads. The introducer population was 49.4% men and 50.6% women; the speaker population included 58.8% men and 41.2% women.

Overall, 77.9% of speakers were addressed professionally in the first mention, and 71.5% were addressed professionally throughout the introduction. When making introductions, full professors were significantly more likely to use nonprofessional address than associate professors, assistant professors, and trainees (28.7% vs. 18.2%, 10.8%, and 0%, respectively).

Regardless of the sex of the speaker, women making introductions were significantly more likely than men to use professional titles for the speaker on first reference and consistently (84.2% vs. 71.5% and 78.2% vs. 64.7%, respectively; P < 0.001 for both).

Men doing introductions used professional forms of address similarly for both men and women speakers on first reference and consistently (72.2% vs. 71.1% and 65.4% vs. 64.3%, respectively).

No significant difference appeared in the use of professional address by women introducing women speakers compared to women introducing men speakers on first reference and consistently (81.9% vs. 86.1% and 75.0% vs. 80.8%, respectively).

“There was no significant association of the formality of introductions with the speaker’s sex and rank,” the researchers noted.

The findings were limited by several factors, including a lack of self-identified sex data, restriction to a binary determination of sex, and a lack of race/ethnicity analysis, the authors noted. In addition, the study could not account for prior familiarity between introducers and speakers that might influence the introduction.
 

Findings show positive trend

Dr. Kalra was surprised by the study findings, but in a good way. “A recent study on speakers presenting at Internal Medicine grand rounds demonstrated significant sex-based differences in using professional titles for formal introductions for women speakers in comparison with men speakers,” he said in an interview. The current study researchers expected to find similar differences.

“To our pleasant surprise, there was no implicit sex bias in introductions at the ACC 22, as there was no significant difference in the use of professional forms of address by men introducers of women speakers compared with men introducers of men speakers,” he said. “Similarly, the percentage of professional forms of address by women introducers was similar for men and women speakers.”
 

Setting an example

“A platform like ACC 22 is a window into the world of cardiovascular disease professionals – it’s a snapshot of who we are and what ethos/principles/values we represent,” said Dr. Kalra. “How we introduce one another is a surrogate marker of the mutual respect we behold for one another; our characters are on display, and the world and our junior colleagues are watching. Modern-day cardiology departments and practices must be completely intolerant to subtle microaggressions. The important take-away for clinicians is that it could be that our surprising findings may be attributed to the increased dialogue on sex disparities in cardiology, which has made physicians more cognizant of subtle microaggressions.”

A larger sample size is needed to replicate the study findings, and Dr. Kalra and colleagues hope to include data from ACC’s 2023 meeting, held with the World Congress of Cardiology in March, for additional research in this area.
 

Time to close inclusion gaps

“The time is now to dive into all previous and current gaps in diversity and inclusion,” Roxana Mehran, MD, said in an interview. “We must understand what the data are, and disseminate and educate all in health care on these issues.”

Dr. Mehran said she was not surprised by the findings of the current study. “This has been my own feeling for many years, watching mostly men be given important roles, such as Grand Rounds Speaking engagements. Now we have the data, and I congratulate the authors for the hard work to dig this out.

“In all aspects, we need to look at the entire talent pool to choose leadership, speakers, and key opinion leaders, as well as principal investigators in clinical trials,” said Dr. Mehran. “This has long been given to our wonderful and talented male colleagues without any effort to look for women, and non-Whites to be given the opportunity to shine and share their talent.”

Looking ahead, “we must remain vigilant and close gaps in all aspects of medicine whether in delivering care, or in the work force; this needs intentional efforts by all.”

The study was funded by makeadent.org and the Ram and Sanjita Kalra Aavishqaar Fund. Dr. Kalra is the CEO and creative director of makeadent.org. The other authors had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Mehran had no financial conflicts to disclose.