Diversity in Medicine

Dr. Ben-a-bo?

Nope.

Ben-nabi?

Nope.

Ben-NO-bo?

Also no.

My surname is tricky to pronounce for some people. I sometimes exaggerate to help patients get it right: “Beh-NAAH-bee-oh.” Almost daily someone will reply: “Oh, you’re Italian!” Well, no actually, my friend Enzo who was born in Sicily and lives in Milan, he’s Italian. I’m just a Rhode Islander who knows some Italian words from his grandmother. Most times though, I just answer: ‘Yep, I’m Italian.” It’s faster.

We use names as a shortcut to identify people. In clinic, it can help to find things in common quickly, similar to asking where you’re from. (East Coast patients seem to love that I’m from New England and if they’re Italian and from New York, well then, we’re paisans right from the start.)

However, using names to guess how someone identifies can be risky. In some instances, it could even be seen as microaggressive, particularly if you got it wrong.

Like most of you I’ll bet, I’m pretty good at pronouncing names – we practice thousands of times! Other than accepting a compliment for getting a tricky one right, such as Radivojevic (I think it’s Ra-di-VOI-ye-vich), I hadn’t thought much about names until I heard a great podcast on the topic. I thought I’d share a couple tips.

First, if you’re not particularly good at names or if you struggle with certain types of names, it’s better to ask than to butcher it. Like learning the wrong way to hit a golf ball, you may never be able to do it properly once you’ve done it wrong. (Trust me, I know from both.)

If I’m feeling confident, I’ll give it a try. But if unsure, I ask the patient to pronounce it for me, then I repeat it to confirm I’ve gotten it correct. Then I say it once or twice more during the visit. Lastly, for the knotty tongue-twisting ones, I write it phonetically in their chart.

It is important because mispronouncing names can alienate patients. It might make them feel like we don’t “know” them or that we don’t care about them. Making an effort to pronounce every patients’ name correctly I believe is a simple act we can all do to move us closer to mitigating racial biases and eliminating ethnic disparities in care. Just think how much harder it might be to convince skeptical patients to take their lisinopril if you can’t even get their names right.

Worse perhaps than getting the pronunciation wrong is to turn the name into an issue. Saying: “Oh, that’s hard to pronounce” could be felt as a subtly racist remark – it’s not hard for them to pronounce of course, only for you. Also, guessing a patient’s nationality from the name is risky. Asking “are you Russian?” to someone from Ukraine or “is that Chinese?” to someone from Vietnam can quickly turn a nice office visit down a road named “Awkward.” It can give the impression that they “all look the same” to you, exactly the type of exclusion we’re trying to eliminate in medicine.

Saying a patient’s name perfectly is rewarding and a super-efficient way to connect. It can make salient the truth that you care about the patient and about his or her story, even if the name happens to be Mrs. Xiomara Winyuwongse Khosrowshahi Sundararajan Ngoc. Go ahead, give it a try.

Want more on how properly pronounce names correctly? You might like this episode of NPR’s Life Kit.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected]

Dr. Ben-a-bo?

Nope.

Ben-nabi?

Nope.

Ben-NO-bo?

Also no.

My surname is tricky to pronounce for some people. I sometimes exaggerate to help patients get it right: “Beh-NAAH-bee-oh.” Almost daily someone will reply: “Oh, you’re Italian!” Well, no actually, my friend Enzo who was born in Sicily and lives in Milan, he’s Italian. I’m just a Rhode Islander who knows some Italian words from his grandmother. Most times though, I just answer: ‘Yep, I’m Italian.” It’s faster.

We use names as a shortcut to identify people. In clinic, it can help to find things in common quickly, similar to asking where you’re from. (East Coast patients seem to love that I’m from New England and if they’re Italian and from New York, well then, we’re paisans right from the start.)

However, using names to guess how someone identifies can be risky. In some instances, it could even be seen as microaggressive, particularly if you got it wrong.

Like most of you I’ll bet, I’m pretty good at pronouncing names – we practice thousands of times! Other than accepting a compliment for getting a tricky one right, such as Radivojevic (I think it’s Ra-di-VOI-ye-vich), I hadn’t thought much about names until I heard a great podcast on the topic. I thought I’d share a couple tips.

First, if you’re not particularly good at names or if you struggle with certain types of names, it’s better to ask than to butcher it. Like learning the wrong way to hit a golf ball, you may never be able to do it properly once you’ve done it wrong. (Trust me, I know from both.)

If I’m feeling confident, I’ll give it a try. But if unsure, I ask the patient to pronounce it for me, then I repeat it to confirm I’ve gotten it correct. Then I say it once or twice more during the visit. Lastly, for the knotty tongue-twisting ones, I write it phonetically in their chart.

It is important because mispronouncing names can alienate patients. It might make them feel like we don’t “know” them or that we don’t care about them. Making an effort to pronounce every patients’ name correctly I believe is a simple act we can all do to move us closer to mitigating racial biases and eliminating ethnic disparities in care. Just think how much harder it might be to convince skeptical patients to take their lisinopril if you can’t even get their names right.

Worse perhaps than getting the pronunciation wrong is to turn the name into an issue. Saying: “Oh, that’s hard to pronounce” could be felt as a subtly racist remark – it’s not hard for them to pronounce of course, only for you. Also, guessing a patient’s nationality from the name is risky. Asking “are you Russian?” to someone from Ukraine or “is that Chinese?” to someone from Vietnam can quickly turn a nice office visit down a road named “Awkward.” It can give the impression that they “all look the same” to you, exactly the type of exclusion we’re trying to eliminate in medicine.

Saying a patient’s name perfectly is rewarding and a super-efficient way to connect. It can make salient the truth that you care about the patient and about his or her story, even if the name happens to be Mrs. Xiomara Winyuwongse Khosrowshahi Sundararajan Ngoc. Go ahead, give it a try.

Want more on how properly pronounce names correctly? You might like this episode of NPR’s Life Kit.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected]

Dr. Ben-a-bo?

Nope.

Ben-nabi?

Nope.

Ben-NO-bo?

Also no.

My surname is tricky to pronounce for some people. I sometimes exaggerate to help patients get it right: “Beh-NAAH-bee-oh.” Almost daily someone will reply: “Oh, you’re Italian!” Well, no actually, my friend Enzo who was born in Sicily and lives in Milan, he’s Italian. I’m just a Rhode Islander who knows some Italian words from his grandmother. Most times though, I just answer: ‘Yep, I’m Italian.” It’s faster.

We use names as a shortcut to identify people. In clinic, it can help to find things in common quickly, similar to asking where you’re from. (East Coast patients seem to love that I’m from New England and if they’re Italian and from New York, well then, we’re paisans right from the start.)

However, using names to guess how someone identifies can be risky. In some instances, it could even be seen as microaggressive, particularly if you got it wrong.

Like most of you I’ll bet, I’m pretty good at pronouncing names – we practice thousands of times! Other than accepting a compliment for getting a tricky one right, such as Radivojevic (I think it’s Ra-di-VOI-ye-vich), I hadn’t thought much about names until I heard a great podcast on the topic. I thought I’d share a couple tips.

First, if you’re not particularly good at names or if you struggle with certain types of names, it’s better to ask than to butcher it. Like learning the wrong way to hit a golf ball, you may never be able to do it properly once you’ve done it wrong. (Trust me, I know from both.)

If I’m feeling confident, I’ll give it a try. But if unsure, I ask the patient to pronounce it for me, then I repeat it to confirm I’ve gotten it correct. Then I say it once or twice more during the visit. Lastly, for the knotty tongue-twisting ones, I write it phonetically in their chart.

It is important because mispronouncing names can alienate patients. It might make them feel like we don’t “know” them or that we don’t care about them. Making an effort to pronounce every patients’ name correctly I believe is a simple act we can all do to move us closer to mitigating racial biases and eliminating ethnic disparities in care. Just think how much harder it might be to convince skeptical patients to take their lisinopril if you can’t even get their names right.

Worse perhaps than getting the pronunciation wrong is to turn the name into an issue. Saying: “Oh, that’s hard to pronounce” could be felt as a subtly racist remark – it’s not hard for them to pronounce of course, only for you. Also, guessing a patient’s nationality from the name is risky. Asking “are you Russian?” to someone from Ukraine or “is that Chinese?” to someone from Vietnam can quickly turn a nice office visit down a road named “Awkward.” It can give the impression that they “all look the same” to you, exactly the type of exclusion we’re trying to eliminate in medicine.

Saying a patient’s name perfectly is rewarding and a super-efficient way to connect. It can make salient the truth that you care about the patient and about his or her story, even if the name happens to be Mrs. Xiomara Winyuwongse Khosrowshahi Sundararajan Ngoc. Go ahead, give it a try.

Want more on how properly pronounce names correctly? You might like this episode of NPR’s Life Kit.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at [email protected]

A new study on the changing rheumatology workforce found that, although there has been a notable rise in female rheumatologists, they see fewer patients and have lower earnings than their male counterparts.

BSIP/UIG/GettyImages

“In order for future health workforce policy and planning to be effective and equitable, it is essential to consider policies and other solutions to support the sustainability of rheumatology workforces in light of increasing feminization,” wrote Jessica Widdifield, PhD, of the Sunnybrook Research Institute in Toronto and her colleagues. The study was published in the Journal of Rheumatology.

To investigate potential workload and earnings disparities between male and female rheumatologists, the researchers launched a population-based study of rheumatologists practicing in Ontario, Canada, and their patient visits between April 1, 2000, and March 31, 2015. To quantify clinical activity, they calculated full-time equivalents (FTEs) using annual fee-for-service billing claims and defined rheumatologists practicing at least one clinical FTE as those at or above the 40th percentile of total billings each year. Any rheumatologists practicing less than one FTE were not included in the larger analysis.

Overall, they found that the total number of rheumatologists increased from 146 in 2000 to 194 in 2015, with 49% of the latter workforce being women. When assessing only rheumatologists practicing at greater than one FTE, the number increased from 89 in 2000 to 120 in 2015, with women making up 41.7% of the 2015 workforce. Although practice sizes decreased for both genders over the course of the study, in 2015 the median practice size was 1,948.5 patients (interquartile range, 1,433-2,562) for men, compared with 1,468.5 patients (IQR, 1,212-1,984) for women. In every year but 2001, men had larger median practice sizes than women.

Total patient visits remained relatively stable for men throughout the study period but declined for women, with the gap between genders widening over time. The peak gap in visits was 1,486 (95% confidence interval, 628-2,517) in 2008. And while median payments increased over time for all rheumatologists, median renumeration peaked in 2015 at $362,522 (IQR, $309,503-$437,127) for women, compared with $403,903 (IQR, $313,297-$544,703) for men. That said, the median difference that year – $45,556.10 (95% confidence interval, $951.60-$92,470.40; P = .04) – was the smallest for any in the study period. The largest difference was $102,176.10 (95% CI, $58,457.50-$152,821.20; P < .0001) in 2011.

An opportunity for female rheumatologists to reshape the specialty

Of course, gender gaps like these are not limited to rheumatology or even medicine, wrote Grace C. Wright, MD, PhD, president of the Association of Women in Rheumatology, in an accompanying editorial. “This issue exists across industries as well as across boundaries.”

“Particularly for women physicians, we do have additional demands on our time,” agreed April Jorge, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, in an interview. “For example, we know that women who work often have additional caregiving responsibilities at home, for kids and/or elderly relatives. I do think those are real reasons why certain providers, particularly women, might have a lower clinical volume.”

Despite the significant gender gaps that still exist, Dr. Jorge – who authored a previous study on the gaps in academic rheumatology – was heartened by the data that indicated more women finding their way into the specialty.

“I think it’s good news for rheumatology to be so balanced between men and women as providers,” she said. “For young women trainees, it’s really important to see role models in their field. For patients, it’s incredibly important for them to have a doctor who can relate and who can advocate for them. So many rheumatic conditions that we treat disproportionately affect women, often women of childbearing age. So it’s really important to have women involved in leading the specialty of rheumatology, including clinical practice but also research, education, and policy.”

Dr. Wright concurred in her editorial, stating that “this feminization of rheumatology provides an opportunity to assess the needs of working women, the generational shifts in attitudes toward work-life balance, and a change in clinical practice toward value over volume.”

The study’s authors shared its possible limitations, including the lack of a standard definition of a clinical FTE rheumatologist – thus their decision to define one – and a lack of context as to why certain rheumatologists were practicing less than others. In addition, they preemptively acknowledged Dr. Jorge’s concern by noting their inability to access gender-related details like marital status, family size, and childcare roles, all of which “could contribute to the relationship between physician gender and practice-level activity.”

The study was funded by an operating grant from the Canadian Initiative for Outcomes in Rheumatology Care and supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Two of the authors reported receiving support from the Arthritis Society Stars Career Development Award.
 

A new study on the changing rheumatology workforce found that, although there has been a notable rise in female rheumatologists, they see fewer patients and have lower earnings than their male counterparts.

BSIP/UIG/GettyImages

“In order for future health workforce policy and planning to be effective and equitable, it is essential to consider policies and other solutions to support the sustainability of rheumatology workforces in light of increasing feminization,” wrote Jessica Widdifield, PhD, of the Sunnybrook Research Institute in Toronto and her colleagues. The study was published in the Journal of Rheumatology.

To investigate potential workload and earnings disparities between male and female rheumatologists, the researchers launched a population-based study of rheumatologists practicing in Ontario, Canada, and their patient visits between April 1, 2000, and March 31, 2015. To quantify clinical activity, they calculated full-time equivalents (FTEs) using annual fee-for-service billing claims and defined rheumatologists practicing at least one clinical FTE as those at or above the 40th percentile of total billings each year. Any rheumatologists practicing less than one FTE were not included in the larger analysis.

Overall, they found that the total number of rheumatologists increased from 146 in 2000 to 194 in 2015, with 49% of the latter workforce being women. When assessing only rheumatologists practicing at greater than one FTE, the number increased from 89 in 2000 to 120 in 2015, with women making up 41.7% of the 2015 workforce. Although practice sizes decreased for both genders over the course of the study, in 2015 the median practice size was 1,948.5 patients (interquartile range, 1,433-2,562) for men, compared with 1,468.5 patients (IQR, 1,212-1,984) for women. In every year but 2001, men had larger median practice sizes than women.

Total patient visits remained relatively stable for men throughout the study period but declined for women, with the gap between genders widening over time. The peak gap in visits was 1,486 (95% confidence interval, 628-2,517) in 2008. And while median payments increased over time for all rheumatologists, median renumeration peaked in 2015 at $362,522 (IQR, $309,503-$437,127) for women, compared with $403,903 (IQR, $313,297-$544,703) for men. That said, the median difference that year – $45,556.10 (95% confidence interval, $951.60-$92,470.40; P = .04) – was the smallest for any in the study period. The largest difference was $102,176.10 (95% CI, $58,457.50-$152,821.20; P < .0001) in 2011.

An opportunity for female rheumatologists to reshape the specialty

Of course, gender gaps like these are not limited to rheumatology or even medicine, wrote Grace C. Wright, MD, PhD, president of the Association of Women in Rheumatology, in an accompanying editorial. “This issue exists across industries as well as across boundaries.”

“Particularly for women physicians, we do have additional demands on our time,” agreed April Jorge, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, in an interview. “For example, we know that women who work often have additional caregiving responsibilities at home, for kids and/or elderly relatives. I do think those are real reasons why certain providers, particularly women, might have a lower clinical volume.”

Despite the significant gender gaps that still exist, Dr. Jorge – who authored a previous study on the gaps in academic rheumatology – was heartened by the data that indicated more women finding their way into the specialty.

“I think it’s good news for rheumatology to be so balanced between men and women as providers,” she said. “For young women trainees, it’s really important to see role models in their field. For patients, it’s incredibly important for them to have a doctor who can relate and who can advocate for them. So many rheumatic conditions that we treat disproportionately affect women, often women of childbearing age. So it’s really important to have women involved in leading the specialty of rheumatology, including clinical practice but also research, education, and policy.”

Dr. Wright concurred in her editorial, stating that “this feminization of rheumatology provides an opportunity to assess the needs of working women, the generational shifts in attitudes toward work-life balance, and a change in clinical practice toward value over volume.”

The study’s authors shared its possible limitations, including the lack of a standard definition of a clinical FTE rheumatologist – thus their decision to define one – and a lack of context as to why certain rheumatologists were practicing less than others. In addition, they preemptively acknowledged Dr. Jorge’s concern by noting their inability to access gender-related details like marital status, family size, and childcare roles, all of which “could contribute to the relationship between physician gender and practice-level activity.”

The study was funded by an operating grant from the Canadian Initiative for Outcomes in Rheumatology Care and supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Two of the authors reported receiving support from the Arthritis Society Stars Career Development Award.
 

A new study on the changing rheumatology workforce found that, although there has been a notable rise in female rheumatologists, they see fewer patients and have lower earnings than their male counterparts.

BSIP/UIG/GettyImages

“In order for future health workforce policy and planning to be effective and equitable, it is essential to consider policies and other solutions to support the sustainability of rheumatology workforces in light of increasing feminization,” wrote Jessica Widdifield, PhD, of the Sunnybrook Research Institute in Toronto and her colleagues. The study was published in the Journal of Rheumatology.

To investigate potential workload and earnings disparities between male and female rheumatologists, the researchers launched a population-based study of rheumatologists practicing in Ontario, Canada, and their patient visits between April 1, 2000, and March 31, 2015. To quantify clinical activity, they calculated full-time equivalents (FTEs) using annual fee-for-service billing claims and defined rheumatologists practicing at least one clinical FTE as those at or above the 40th percentile of total billings each year. Any rheumatologists practicing less than one FTE were not included in the larger analysis.

Overall, they found that the total number of rheumatologists increased from 146 in 2000 to 194 in 2015, with 49% of the latter workforce being women. When assessing only rheumatologists practicing at greater than one FTE, the number increased from 89 in 2000 to 120 in 2015, with women making up 41.7% of the 2015 workforce. Although practice sizes decreased for both genders over the course of the study, in 2015 the median practice size was 1,948.5 patients (interquartile range, 1,433-2,562) for men, compared with 1,468.5 patients (IQR, 1,212-1,984) for women. In every year but 2001, men had larger median practice sizes than women.

Total patient visits remained relatively stable for men throughout the study period but declined for women, with the gap between genders widening over time. The peak gap in visits was 1,486 (95% confidence interval, 628-2,517) in 2008. And while median payments increased over time for all rheumatologists, median renumeration peaked in 2015 at $362,522 (IQR, $309,503-$437,127) for women, compared with $403,903 (IQR, $313,297-$544,703) for men. That said, the median difference that year – $45,556.10 (95% confidence interval, $951.60-$92,470.40; P = .04) – was the smallest for any in the study period. The largest difference was $102,176.10 (95% CI, $58,457.50-$152,821.20; P < .0001) in 2011.

An opportunity for female rheumatologists to reshape the specialty

Of course, gender gaps like these are not limited to rheumatology or even medicine, wrote Grace C. Wright, MD, PhD, president of the Association of Women in Rheumatology, in an accompanying editorial. “This issue exists across industries as well as across boundaries.”

“Particularly for women physicians, we do have additional demands on our time,” agreed April Jorge, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, in an interview. “For example, we know that women who work often have additional caregiving responsibilities at home, for kids and/or elderly relatives. I do think those are real reasons why certain providers, particularly women, might have a lower clinical volume.”

Despite the significant gender gaps that still exist, Dr. Jorge – who authored a previous study on the gaps in academic rheumatology – was heartened by the data that indicated more women finding their way into the specialty.

“I think it’s good news for rheumatology to be so balanced between men and women as providers,” she said. “For young women trainees, it’s really important to see role models in their field. For patients, it’s incredibly important for them to have a doctor who can relate and who can advocate for them. So many rheumatic conditions that we treat disproportionately affect women, often women of childbearing age. So it’s really important to have women involved in leading the specialty of rheumatology, including clinical practice but also research, education, and policy.”

Dr. Wright concurred in her editorial, stating that “this feminization of rheumatology provides an opportunity to assess the needs of working women, the generational shifts in attitudes toward work-life balance, and a change in clinical practice toward value over volume.”

The study’s authors shared its possible limitations, including the lack of a standard definition of a clinical FTE rheumatologist – thus their decision to define one – and a lack of context as to why certain rheumatologists were practicing less than others. In addition, they preemptively acknowledged Dr. Jorge’s concern by noting their inability to access gender-related details like marital status, family size, and childcare roles, all of which “could contribute to the relationship between physician gender and practice-level activity.”

The study was funded by an operating grant from the Canadian Initiative for Outcomes in Rheumatology Care and supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Two of the authors reported receiving support from the Arthritis Society Stars Career Development Award.
 

Black patients diagnosed by dermatologists with cutaneous sarcoidosis were significantly more likely to have unrecognized systemic organ involvement than were non-Black patients, according to a retrospective chart review of patients seen at Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.

Black patients were also significantly more likely to have two or more organs involved and have higher rates of cardiac involvement, the latter of which is associated with worse prognosis. “Our data suggest there may be substantial variations in organ involvement between racial groups of patients presenting with cutaneous sarcoidosis,” said medical student Kylee Kus, a medical student at Oakland University, Auburn Hills, Mich., who presented the findings with Bina Kassamali, a medical student at Harvard University, Boston, at the annual Skin of Color Society scientific symposium.

Sotonye Imadojemu, MD, MBE; Avery LeChance, MD, MPH; and Ruth Anne Vleugels, MD, MPH, MBA; of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, are cosenior authors of the abstract.

The researchers identified 111 patients who were diagnosed with cutaneous sarcoidosis over a 20-year period (January 2000–December 2019), 50 of whom presented without established extracutaneous disease. They examined the charts of these 50 patients for whether subsequent work-up revealed systemic disease.

Of the 50 patients, 9 were Black. Seven of these nine patients (77.8%), were found to have systemic involvement, compared with 14 of 41 (46.3%) non-Black patients – a 31.5% higher probability (P < .05). One-third of the nine Black patients were found to have disease in one organ, and 44.4% in two or more organs. In non-Black patients, these rates were 12.2% and 34.1%, respectively.

Cardiovascular involvement was not found in any of the non-Black patients who had extracutaneous disease, but was found in 29% of the Black patients with extracutaneous disease, a statistically significant difference.

Black patients are known to be at higher risk for sarcoidosis than non-Black patients, and because “there is an association between cardiac sarcoid involvement and poor prognosis largely due to manifestations such as heart block, arrhythmias, and heart failure ... the study helps demonstrate how this organ involvement can disproportionately affect the Black population,” Ms. Kassamali said in an interview after the meeting.

A separate, recently published analysis of data from the same patient population examined the work-ups that patients received after a dermatologist’s diagnosis of sarcoidosis and found that patients with no previous systemic work-up were subsequently assessed for cardiac involvement in only 58.3% of cases. Assessment for pulmonary and ocular disease was completed more than 90% of the time.

“Crucial testing for cardiac involvement fell short,” Dr. Imadojemu, of the department of dermatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and coinvestigators wrote in the research letter.

“Because the cutaneous manifestations of sarcoidosis often present at disease onset, dermatologists may be the first physicians to diagnose a patient with sarcoidosis,” they wrote. “As such, dermatologists are often responsible for initiating the appropriate evaluation of patients with sarcoidosis.”

Pulmonary involvement occurs in nearly all cases of sarcoidosis, while ocular and cardiac disease develop in approximately 25% and 10% of patients, respectively. Cardiac sarcoidosis is usually asymptomatic and accounts for 13%-25% of sarcoidosis-related deaths in the United States, they wrote.

An electrocardiogram is the appropriate initial screening tool and “is warranted in all patients with sarcoidosis,” they advised.

Black patients diagnosed by dermatologists with cutaneous sarcoidosis were significantly more likely to have unrecognized systemic organ involvement than were non-Black patients, according to a retrospective chart review of patients seen at Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.

Black patients were also significantly more likely to have two or more organs involved and have higher rates of cardiac involvement, the latter of which is associated with worse prognosis. “Our data suggest there may be substantial variations in organ involvement between racial groups of patients presenting with cutaneous sarcoidosis,” said medical student Kylee Kus, a medical student at Oakland University, Auburn Hills, Mich., who presented the findings with Bina Kassamali, a medical student at Harvard University, Boston, at the annual Skin of Color Society scientific symposium.

Sotonye Imadojemu, MD, MBE; Avery LeChance, MD, MPH; and Ruth Anne Vleugels, MD, MPH, MBA; of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, are cosenior authors of the abstract.

The researchers identified 111 patients who were diagnosed with cutaneous sarcoidosis over a 20-year period (January 2000–December 2019), 50 of whom presented without established extracutaneous disease. They examined the charts of these 50 patients for whether subsequent work-up revealed systemic disease.

Of the 50 patients, 9 were Black. Seven of these nine patients (77.8%), were found to have systemic involvement, compared with 14 of 41 (46.3%) non-Black patients – a 31.5% higher probability (P < .05). One-third of the nine Black patients were found to have disease in one organ, and 44.4% in two or more organs. In non-Black patients, these rates were 12.2% and 34.1%, respectively.

Cardiovascular involvement was not found in any of the non-Black patients who had extracutaneous disease, but was found in 29% of the Black patients with extracutaneous disease, a statistically significant difference.

Black patients are known to be at higher risk for sarcoidosis than non-Black patients, and because “there is an association between cardiac sarcoid involvement and poor prognosis largely due to manifestations such as heart block, arrhythmias, and heart failure ... the study helps demonstrate how this organ involvement can disproportionately affect the Black population,” Ms. Kassamali said in an interview after the meeting.

A separate, recently published analysis of data from the same patient population examined the work-ups that patients received after a dermatologist’s diagnosis of sarcoidosis and found that patients with no previous systemic work-up were subsequently assessed for cardiac involvement in only 58.3% of cases. Assessment for pulmonary and ocular disease was completed more than 90% of the time.

“Crucial testing for cardiac involvement fell short,” Dr. Imadojemu, of the department of dermatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and coinvestigators wrote in the research letter.

“Because the cutaneous manifestations of sarcoidosis often present at disease onset, dermatologists may be the first physicians to diagnose a patient with sarcoidosis,” they wrote. “As such, dermatologists are often responsible for initiating the appropriate evaluation of patients with sarcoidosis.”

Pulmonary involvement occurs in nearly all cases of sarcoidosis, while ocular and cardiac disease develop in approximately 25% and 10% of patients, respectively. Cardiac sarcoidosis is usually asymptomatic and accounts for 13%-25% of sarcoidosis-related deaths in the United States, they wrote.

An electrocardiogram is the appropriate initial screening tool and “is warranted in all patients with sarcoidosis,” they advised.

Black patients diagnosed by dermatologists with cutaneous sarcoidosis were significantly more likely to have unrecognized systemic organ involvement than were non-Black patients, according to a retrospective chart review of patients seen at Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.

Black patients were also significantly more likely to have two or more organs involved and have higher rates of cardiac involvement, the latter of which is associated with worse prognosis. “Our data suggest there may be substantial variations in organ involvement between racial groups of patients presenting with cutaneous sarcoidosis,” said medical student Kylee Kus, a medical student at Oakland University, Auburn Hills, Mich., who presented the findings with Bina Kassamali, a medical student at Harvard University, Boston, at the annual Skin of Color Society scientific symposium.

Sotonye Imadojemu, MD, MBE; Avery LeChance, MD, MPH; and Ruth Anne Vleugels, MD, MPH, MBA; of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, are cosenior authors of the abstract.

The researchers identified 111 patients who were diagnosed with cutaneous sarcoidosis over a 20-year period (January 2000–December 2019), 50 of whom presented without established extracutaneous disease. They examined the charts of these 50 patients for whether subsequent work-up revealed systemic disease.

Of the 50 patients, 9 were Black. Seven of these nine patients (77.8%), were found to have systemic involvement, compared with 14 of 41 (46.3%) non-Black patients – a 31.5% higher probability (P < .05). One-third of the nine Black patients were found to have disease in one organ, and 44.4% in two or more organs. In non-Black patients, these rates were 12.2% and 34.1%, respectively.

Cardiovascular involvement was not found in any of the non-Black patients who had extracutaneous disease, but was found in 29% of the Black patients with extracutaneous disease, a statistically significant difference.

Black patients are known to be at higher risk for sarcoidosis than non-Black patients, and because “there is an association between cardiac sarcoid involvement and poor prognosis largely due to manifestations such as heart block, arrhythmias, and heart failure ... the study helps demonstrate how this organ involvement can disproportionately affect the Black population,” Ms. Kassamali said in an interview after the meeting.

A separate, recently published analysis of data from the same patient population examined the work-ups that patients received after a dermatologist’s diagnosis of sarcoidosis and found that patients with no previous systemic work-up were subsequently assessed for cardiac involvement in only 58.3% of cases. Assessment for pulmonary and ocular disease was completed more than 90% of the time.

“Crucial testing for cardiac involvement fell short,” Dr. Imadojemu, of the department of dermatology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and coinvestigators wrote in the research letter.

“Because the cutaneous manifestations of sarcoidosis often present at disease onset, dermatologists may be the first physicians to diagnose a patient with sarcoidosis,” they wrote. “As such, dermatologists are often responsible for initiating the appropriate evaluation of patients with sarcoidosis.”

Pulmonary involvement occurs in nearly all cases of sarcoidosis, while ocular and cardiac disease develop in approximately 25% and 10% of patients, respectively. Cardiac sarcoidosis is usually asymptomatic and accounts for 13%-25% of sarcoidosis-related deaths in the United States, they wrote.

An electrocardiogram is the appropriate initial screening tool and “is warranted in all patients with sarcoidosis,” they advised.

Black and Hispanic patients had higher inpatient care utilization for mycosis fungoides (MF) – and were admitted at a younger age – compared with White patients, according to an analysis of the 2012-2017 National Inpatient Sample (NIS).

The findings are consistent with prior studies implicating earlier and more severe disease in Black and Hispanic patients, and reinforce the importance of accurate diagnosis and early treatment.

Dermatologists should maintain “a higher index of suspicion for MF in patients with skin of color, as early diagnosis may help mitigate the downstream costs of management,” Justin Choi, BA, a medical student at the University of Illinois at Chicago, said at the annual Skin of Color Society symposium.

Mr. Choi and coinvestigators, led by Shawn Kwatra, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, identified hospital admissions for MF in the NIS for 10,790 White patients, 4,020 Black patients, and 1,615 Hispanic patients over the 5-year period. The inpatient prevalence of MF – the most common variant of primary cutaneous T-cell lymphoma – was highest in these groups.

Black and Hispanic patients who were hospitalized for MF were significantly younger than White patients, with a mean age of 51.7 years and 48.5 years, respectively, compared with 59.9 years (P < .001 in each case). They also had longer lengths of stay: 8.34 days on average for Black patients and 8.88 for Hispanic patients, compared with 6.66 days for White patients (P < .001 and P = .001, respectively).

Hispanic patients accrued the highest costs of care (a mean of $107,242 vs. $64,049, P =.003) and underwent more procedures (a mean of 2.43 vs. 1.93, P = .004) than White patients. Black patients similarly had higher costs associated with their hospital stay (a mean of $75,053 vs. $64,049, P =.042).

In a multivariate linear regression adjusted for age, sex and insurance type, Black race remained significantly associated with a longer LOS than White race, and Hispanic ethnicity with a longer LOS, increased costs, and more procedures than White race.

The NIS is a publicly available, all-payer inpatient care database developed for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project.

Mr. Choi is a dermatology research fellow working under the guidance of Dr. Kwatra.

Black and Hispanic patients had higher inpatient care utilization for mycosis fungoides (MF) – and were admitted at a younger age – compared with White patients, according to an analysis of the 2012-2017 National Inpatient Sample (NIS).

The findings are consistent with prior studies implicating earlier and more severe disease in Black and Hispanic patients, and reinforce the importance of accurate diagnosis and early treatment.

Dermatologists should maintain “a higher index of suspicion for MF in patients with skin of color, as early diagnosis may help mitigate the downstream costs of management,” Justin Choi, BA, a medical student at the University of Illinois at Chicago, said at the annual Skin of Color Society symposium.

Mr. Choi and coinvestigators, led by Shawn Kwatra, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, identified hospital admissions for MF in the NIS for 10,790 White patients, 4,020 Black patients, and 1,615 Hispanic patients over the 5-year period. The inpatient prevalence of MF – the most common variant of primary cutaneous T-cell lymphoma – was highest in these groups.

Black and Hispanic patients who were hospitalized for MF were significantly younger than White patients, with a mean age of 51.7 years and 48.5 years, respectively, compared with 59.9 years (P < .001 in each case). They also had longer lengths of stay: 8.34 days on average for Black patients and 8.88 for Hispanic patients, compared with 6.66 days for White patients (P < .001 and P = .001, respectively).

Hispanic patients accrued the highest costs of care (a mean of $107,242 vs. $64,049, P =.003) and underwent more procedures (a mean of 2.43 vs. 1.93, P = .004) than White patients. Black patients similarly had higher costs associated with their hospital stay (a mean of $75,053 vs. $64,049, P =.042).

In a multivariate linear regression adjusted for age, sex and insurance type, Black race remained significantly associated with a longer LOS than White race, and Hispanic ethnicity with a longer LOS, increased costs, and more procedures than White race.

The NIS is a publicly available, all-payer inpatient care database developed for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project.

Mr. Choi is a dermatology research fellow working under the guidance of Dr. Kwatra.

Black and Hispanic patients had higher inpatient care utilization for mycosis fungoides (MF) – and were admitted at a younger age – compared with White patients, according to an analysis of the 2012-2017 National Inpatient Sample (NIS).

The findings are consistent with prior studies implicating earlier and more severe disease in Black and Hispanic patients, and reinforce the importance of accurate diagnosis and early treatment.

Dermatologists should maintain “a higher index of suspicion for MF in patients with skin of color, as early diagnosis may help mitigate the downstream costs of management,” Justin Choi, BA, a medical student at the University of Illinois at Chicago, said at the annual Skin of Color Society symposium.

Mr. Choi and coinvestigators, led by Shawn Kwatra, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, identified hospital admissions for MF in the NIS for 10,790 White patients, 4,020 Black patients, and 1,615 Hispanic patients over the 5-year period. The inpatient prevalence of MF – the most common variant of primary cutaneous T-cell lymphoma – was highest in these groups.

Black and Hispanic patients who were hospitalized for MF were significantly younger than White patients, with a mean age of 51.7 years and 48.5 years, respectively, compared with 59.9 years (P < .001 in each case). They also had longer lengths of stay: 8.34 days on average for Black patients and 8.88 for Hispanic patients, compared with 6.66 days for White patients (P < .001 and P = .001, respectively).

Hispanic patients accrued the highest costs of care (a mean of $107,242 vs. $64,049, P =.003) and underwent more procedures (a mean of 2.43 vs. 1.93, P = .004) than White patients. Black patients similarly had higher costs associated with their hospital stay (a mean of $75,053 vs. $64,049, P =.042).

In a multivariate linear regression adjusted for age, sex and insurance type, Black race remained significantly associated with a longer LOS than White race, and Hispanic ethnicity with a longer LOS, increased costs, and more procedures than White race.

The NIS is a publicly available, all-payer inpatient care database developed for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project.

Mr. Choi is a dermatology research fellow working under the guidance of Dr. Kwatra.

Asian Americans with melanoma presented at a younger age but with higher rates of invasive disease and at later stages of disease, compared with non-Hispanic Whites, according to a secondary analysis of data from the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program.

The findings are consistent with previous studies indicating delayed detection of melanoma in Asians, compared with non-Hispanic Whites, and provide a window into Asian American communities specifically, Erica M. Lin, a medical student at Brown University, Providence, R.I., said at the annual Skin of Color Society Symposium. The majority of studies on melanoma in Asians have originated in Asia, noted Ms. Lin, whose coauthor was Eunyoung Cho, ScD, an associate professor in the department of dermatology and director of the clinical and translational research program at Brown University. Their analysis covered registries from 10 geographic areas representing 54% of the U.S. Asian American population over a 25-year period, from 1990 to 2014.

Asian Americans with melanoma were more likely to present at an invasive stage than non-Hispanic Whites (82.9% vs. 72.2%, P < .001), and they were significantly more likely to present when the disease had progressed to a distant stage (9.39% vs. 2.51%, P < .001), even though they were of younger ages at the time of those diagnoses, Ms. Lin reported at the meeting. (The numbers do not account for unknown or unstaged melanoma cases.)

Significantly fewer Asian Americans presented at the “in situ” stage, compared with non-Hispanic Whites (17.11% vs. 27.78%). The lower extremities were the most common site in Asian Americans, compared with the trunk in Non-Hispanic Whites.

The SEER registries covered the eight largest Asian American groups: Asian Indians/Pakistanis, Chinese, Filipinos, Japanese, Kampucheans (Cambodians), Koreans, Laotians, and Vietnamese. Melanoma was more common in females across the groups (53% of females vs. 47% of males), with the exception of Asian Indians/Pakistanis.

While melanoma increased significantly over time among non-Hispanic Whites – a mean 24% increase per 5-year period – there was “no significant change in melanoma rates in Asians,” Ms. Lin said.

The lack of increase in Asian American communities combined with the other findings is “potentially concerning” and suggests “that there may be cases that are not being identified,” she said in an interview after the meeting. In their abstract, she and Dr. Cho noted that their findings underscore the need for further prevention, screening, and surveillance measures.

The NCI’s SEER program is a coordinated system of cancer registries across the United States that collects data on every case of cancer reported in 19 geographic areas.

Asian Americans with melanoma presented at a younger age but with higher rates of invasive disease and at later stages of disease, compared with non-Hispanic Whites, according to a secondary analysis of data from the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program.

The findings are consistent with previous studies indicating delayed detection of melanoma in Asians, compared with non-Hispanic Whites, and provide a window into Asian American communities specifically, Erica M. Lin, a medical student at Brown University, Providence, R.I., said at the annual Skin of Color Society Symposium. The majority of studies on melanoma in Asians have originated in Asia, noted Ms. Lin, whose coauthor was Eunyoung Cho, ScD, an associate professor in the department of dermatology and director of the clinical and translational research program at Brown University. Their analysis covered registries from 10 geographic areas representing 54% of the U.S. Asian American population over a 25-year period, from 1990 to 2014.

Asian Americans with melanoma were more likely to present at an invasive stage than non-Hispanic Whites (82.9% vs. 72.2%, P < .001), and they were significantly more likely to present when the disease had progressed to a distant stage (9.39% vs. 2.51%, P < .001), even though they were of younger ages at the time of those diagnoses, Ms. Lin reported at the meeting. (The numbers do not account for unknown or unstaged melanoma cases.)

Significantly fewer Asian Americans presented at the “in situ” stage, compared with non-Hispanic Whites (17.11% vs. 27.78%). The lower extremities were the most common site in Asian Americans, compared with the trunk in Non-Hispanic Whites.

The SEER registries covered the eight largest Asian American groups: Asian Indians/Pakistanis, Chinese, Filipinos, Japanese, Kampucheans (Cambodians), Koreans, Laotians, and Vietnamese. Melanoma was more common in females across the groups (53% of females vs. 47% of males), with the exception of Asian Indians/Pakistanis.

While melanoma increased significantly over time among non-Hispanic Whites – a mean 24% increase per 5-year period – there was “no significant change in melanoma rates in Asians,” Ms. Lin said.

The lack of increase in Asian American communities combined with the other findings is “potentially concerning” and suggests “that there may be cases that are not being identified,” she said in an interview after the meeting. In their abstract, she and Dr. Cho noted that their findings underscore the need for further prevention, screening, and surveillance measures.

The NCI’s SEER program is a coordinated system of cancer registries across the United States that collects data on every case of cancer reported in 19 geographic areas.

Asian Americans with melanoma presented at a younger age but with higher rates of invasive disease and at later stages of disease, compared with non-Hispanic Whites, according to a secondary analysis of data from the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program.

The findings are consistent with previous studies indicating delayed detection of melanoma in Asians, compared with non-Hispanic Whites, and provide a window into Asian American communities specifically, Erica M. Lin, a medical student at Brown University, Providence, R.I., said at the annual Skin of Color Society Symposium. The majority of studies on melanoma in Asians have originated in Asia, noted Ms. Lin, whose coauthor was Eunyoung Cho, ScD, an associate professor in the department of dermatology and director of the clinical and translational research program at Brown University. Their analysis covered registries from 10 geographic areas representing 54% of the U.S. Asian American population over a 25-year period, from 1990 to 2014.

Asian Americans with melanoma were more likely to present at an invasive stage than non-Hispanic Whites (82.9% vs. 72.2%, P < .001), and they were significantly more likely to present when the disease had progressed to a distant stage (9.39% vs. 2.51%, P < .001), even though they were of younger ages at the time of those diagnoses, Ms. Lin reported at the meeting. (The numbers do not account for unknown or unstaged melanoma cases.)

Significantly fewer Asian Americans presented at the “in situ” stage, compared with non-Hispanic Whites (17.11% vs. 27.78%). The lower extremities were the most common site in Asian Americans, compared with the trunk in Non-Hispanic Whites.

The SEER registries covered the eight largest Asian American groups: Asian Indians/Pakistanis, Chinese, Filipinos, Japanese, Kampucheans (Cambodians), Koreans, Laotians, and Vietnamese. Melanoma was more common in females across the groups (53% of females vs. 47% of males), with the exception of Asian Indians/Pakistanis.

While melanoma increased significantly over time among non-Hispanic Whites – a mean 24% increase per 5-year period – there was “no significant change in melanoma rates in Asians,” Ms. Lin said.

The lack of increase in Asian American communities combined with the other findings is “potentially concerning” and suggests “that there may be cases that are not being identified,” she said in an interview after the meeting. In their abstract, she and Dr. Cho noted that their findings underscore the need for further prevention, screening, and surveillance measures.

The NCI’s SEER program is a coordinated system of cancer registries across the United States that collects data on every case of cancer reported in 19 geographic areas.

Studding almost every inch of skin except the face are gray lichenified plaques coating a patient’s body like worn leather. Raking his nails across his arm, the patient reminds me how long he had waited to receive this referral and how early he had awoken for this appointment. He was well acquainted with the value of promptness; in his world, it might make the difference between sleeping on a cot and a night spent on concrete.

Over the last year, the patient had cycled through the few safety-net clinics scattered throughout the city. He had accumulated numerous different diagnoses from atopic dermatitis to disseminated tinea corporis. A few minutes, one #15 scalpel, and mineral oil were all it took for us to unravel the mystery. As the attending and I peered through the microscope at the scabies ovum, I couldn’t help but wonder about the alternative outcomes to his case. Left untreated, scabies compromises the skin barrier, paving the way for secondary infections such as cellulitis. Depending on the pathogen, this infection may in turn evolve into acute postinfectious glomerulonephritis.^1-4 An elusive diagnosis can quietly escalate into considerable morbidity for patients. This case highlights the dire consequences of dermatologic health disparities and places medicine’s primordial function into sharp focus: the alleviation of suffering.

The Dermatologic Burden of Disease

As a major contributor to global disease burden, dermatologic disease is the fourth greatest cause of disability worldwide when mortality is factored out.^5,6 Among global rural populations, dermatologic disease constitutes one of the leading causes of death and/or loss of professional capabilities.⁷ In the United States alone, nearly 27% of the population saw a physician for at least 1 dermatologic disease in 2013.⁵ The tremendous prevalence of skin disease magnifies discrepancies in access to dermatologic care, which has been observed to be influenced by age, socioeconomic background, rurality, and sex.⁸

There has been growing focus on the national shortage of dermatologists over the last 2 decades.^9,10 With an aging population and rising incidence of skin cancer, this undersupply is projected to increase and disproportionately impact ethnic minorities as well as those from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds.^8,9,11-14 These trends are of particular importance to residents and medical trainees. Multiple studies have demonstrated that the patient demographic of hospital-based resident clinics includes primarily minority and disenfranchised populations with poorer overall health.^15-17 In contrast to faculty clinics, residents treat patients who are more likely to be nonwhite and more likely to be reimbursed by Medicaid.¹⁸ The unique demographic makeup of hospital-based resident clinics raises questions about the preparedness and comfort of resident physicians in managing the nuances of health care delivery in these settings.¹⁰

Providing equitable care to marginalized populations within the constraints of 15- to 30-minute visits can be challenging to physicians and trainees. Even clinicians with the best of intentions may be impeded by a lack of familiarity with the daily realities of impoverished living conditions, implicit prejudice against people living in poverty, and adapting recommendations to varying levels of health literacy among patients.^19,20 Contending with these daunting obstacles can be discouraging. Given how entrenched certain institutional barriers are, questioning them may seem an exercise in futility, yet history demonstrates that residents can and have been empowered to improve tangible outcomes for vulnerable populations. In reflecting on approaches of the general medical education system, The Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation President George E. Thibault, MD, observed that, “When appropriately trained, deployed and incented, [residents] can help achieve institutional goals to improve quality, safety and efficiency.”²¹

Start Small But Dream Big

Action begins with awareness. Medical school and teaching hospital curricula are increasingly integrating educational exercises regarding the social determinants of health and populations with unmet needs. Medical training presents an exclusive opportunity to gain exposure to and familiarity with patient populations that one might not otherwise encounter. Immersion programs provide invaluable experience in tailoring health care delivery to the needs of vulnerable communities. Although opportunities for international rotations abound, domestic rotations among underserved populations can be just as transformative, including correctional medicine, homeless clinics, the Indian Health Service, and rural communities.

Create Partnerships to Broaden Impact of Service

Affecting the largest and most visible organ, skin disease often presents a substantial concern for patients and can herald systemic disease. The nature of dermatologic disease engenders close collaboration between general practitioners and specialists. For example, while resident-run or safety-net clinics characteristically center on providing holistic care for patients through internal medicine or primary care, these overworked and understaffed clinics often are in need of evaluation by specialists for specific concerns. Some clinic models feature dermatology faculty who volunteer routinely (ie, every 2 weeks, every month) to examine all the clinic’s patients presenting with concerns pertinent to the specialty. Drawing on their respective areas of expertise, general practitioners and dermatologists therefore can collaborate to connect disadvantaged patients with the specialized care they need.

Challenges Present Opportunities for Innovation

Adhering to the social distancing requirements of the COVID-19 pandemic protocol has driven clinicians to utilize innovative approaches to patient care. The rural-urban misdistribution of the dermatologist workforce has long been established, with rural patients often experiencing lengthy wait times to see a specialist.⁹ Both synchronous and asynchronous teledermatology modalities provide an ideal platform for triaging patients with dermatologic concerns who otherwise have meager access to a dermatologist.

Final Thoughts

Residency training is a prime opportunity to gain exposure to the broad spectrum of disease within dermatology as well as the diverse range of affected patients. Drawing on the aforementioned strategies, residents can leverage this knowledge in the service of underserved patients.

Studding almost every inch of skin except the face are gray lichenified plaques coating a patient’s body like worn leather. Raking his nails across his arm, the patient reminds me how long he had waited to receive this referral and how early he had awoken for this appointment. He was well acquainted with the value of promptness; in his world, it might make the difference between sleeping on a cot and a night spent on concrete.

Over the last year, the patient had cycled through the few safety-net clinics scattered throughout the city. He had accumulated numerous different diagnoses from atopic dermatitis to disseminated tinea corporis. A few minutes, one #15 scalpel, and mineral oil were all it took for us to unravel the mystery. As the attending and I peered through the microscope at the scabies ovum, I couldn’t help but wonder about the alternative outcomes to his case. Left untreated, scabies compromises the skin barrier, paving the way for secondary infections such as cellulitis. Depending on the pathogen, this infection may in turn evolve into acute postinfectious glomerulonephritis.^1-4 An elusive diagnosis can quietly escalate into considerable morbidity for patients. This case highlights the dire consequences of dermatologic health disparities and places medicine’s primordial function into sharp focus: the alleviation of suffering.

The Dermatologic Burden of Disease

As a major contributor to global disease burden, dermatologic disease is the fourth greatest cause of disability worldwide when mortality is factored out.^5,6 Among global rural populations, dermatologic disease constitutes one of the leading causes of death and/or loss of professional capabilities.⁷ In the United States alone, nearly 27% of the population saw a physician for at least 1 dermatologic disease in 2013.⁵ The tremendous prevalence of skin disease magnifies discrepancies in access to dermatologic care, which has been observed to be influenced by age, socioeconomic background, rurality, and sex.⁸

There has been growing focus on the national shortage of dermatologists over the last 2 decades.^9,10 With an aging population and rising incidence of skin cancer, this undersupply is projected to increase and disproportionately impact ethnic minorities as well as those from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds.^8,9,11-14 These trends are of particular importance to residents and medical trainees. Multiple studies have demonstrated that the patient demographic of hospital-based resident clinics includes primarily minority and disenfranchised populations with poorer overall health.^15-17 In contrast to faculty clinics, residents treat patients who are more likely to be nonwhite and more likely to be reimbursed by Medicaid.¹⁸ The unique demographic makeup of hospital-based resident clinics raises questions about the preparedness and comfort of resident physicians in managing the nuances of health care delivery in these settings.¹⁰

Providing equitable care to marginalized populations within the constraints of 15- to 30-minute visits can be challenging to physicians and trainees. Even clinicians with the best of intentions may be impeded by a lack of familiarity with the daily realities of impoverished living conditions, implicit prejudice against people living in poverty, and adapting recommendations to varying levels of health literacy among patients.^19,20 Contending with these daunting obstacles can be discouraging. Given how entrenched certain institutional barriers are, questioning them may seem an exercise in futility, yet history demonstrates that residents can and have been empowered to improve tangible outcomes for vulnerable populations. In reflecting on approaches of the general medical education system, The Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation President George E. Thibault, MD, observed that, “When appropriately trained, deployed and incented, [residents] can help achieve institutional goals to improve quality, safety and efficiency.”²¹

Start Small But Dream Big

Action begins with awareness. Medical school and teaching hospital curricula are increasingly integrating educational exercises regarding the social determinants of health and populations with unmet needs. Medical training presents an exclusive opportunity to gain exposure to and familiarity with patient populations that one might not otherwise encounter. Immersion programs provide invaluable experience in tailoring health care delivery to the needs of vulnerable communities. Although opportunities for international rotations abound, domestic rotations among underserved populations can be just as transformative, including correctional medicine, homeless clinics, the Indian Health Service, and rural communities.

Create Partnerships to Broaden Impact of Service

Affecting the largest and most visible organ, skin disease often presents a substantial concern for patients and can herald systemic disease. The nature of dermatologic disease engenders close collaboration between general practitioners and specialists. For example, while resident-run or safety-net clinics characteristically center on providing holistic care for patients through internal medicine or primary care, these overworked and understaffed clinics often are in need of evaluation by specialists for specific concerns. Some clinic models feature dermatology faculty who volunteer routinely (ie, every 2 weeks, every month) to examine all the clinic’s patients presenting with concerns pertinent to the specialty. Drawing on their respective areas of expertise, general practitioners and dermatologists therefore can collaborate to connect disadvantaged patients with the specialized care they need.

Challenges Present Opportunities for Innovation

Adhering to the social distancing requirements of the COVID-19 pandemic protocol has driven clinicians to utilize innovative approaches to patient care. The rural-urban misdistribution of the dermatologist workforce has long been established, with rural patients often experiencing lengthy wait times to see a specialist.⁹ Both synchronous and asynchronous teledermatology modalities provide an ideal platform for triaging patients with dermatologic concerns who otherwise have meager access to a dermatologist.

Final Thoughts

Residency training is a prime opportunity to gain exposure to the broad spectrum of disease within dermatology as well as the diverse range of affected patients. Drawing on the aforementioned strategies, residents can leverage this knowledge in the service of underserved patients.

Studding almost every inch of skin except the face are gray lichenified plaques coating a patient’s body like worn leather. Raking his nails across his arm, the patient reminds me how long he had waited to receive this referral and how early he had awoken for this appointment. He was well acquainted with the value of promptness; in his world, it might make the difference between sleeping on a cot and a night spent on concrete.

Over the last year, the patient had cycled through the few safety-net clinics scattered throughout the city. He had accumulated numerous different diagnoses from atopic dermatitis to disseminated tinea corporis. A few minutes, one #15 scalpel, and mineral oil were all it took for us to unravel the mystery. As the attending and I peered through the microscope at the scabies ovum, I couldn’t help but wonder about the alternative outcomes to his case. Left untreated, scabies compromises the skin barrier, paving the way for secondary infections such as cellulitis. Depending on the pathogen, this infection may in turn evolve into acute postinfectious glomerulonephritis.^1-4 An elusive diagnosis can quietly escalate into considerable morbidity for patients. This case highlights the dire consequences of dermatologic health disparities and places medicine’s primordial function into sharp focus: the alleviation of suffering.

The Dermatologic Burden of Disease

As a major contributor to global disease burden, dermatologic disease is the fourth greatest cause of disability worldwide when mortality is factored out.^5,6 Among global rural populations, dermatologic disease constitutes one of the leading causes of death and/or loss of professional capabilities.⁷ In the United States alone, nearly 27% of the population saw a physician for at least 1 dermatologic disease in 2013.⁵ The tremendous prevalence of skin disease magnifies discrepancies in access to dermatologic care, which has been observed to be influenced by age, socioeconomic background, rurality, and sex.⁸

There has been growing focus on the national shortage of dermatologists over the last 2 decades.^9,10 With an aging population and rising incidence of skin cancer, this undersupply is projected to increase and disproportionately impact ethnic minorities as well as those from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds.^8,9,11-14 These trends are of particular importance to residents and medical trainees. Multiple studies have demonstrated that the patient demographic of hospital-based resident clinics includes primarily minority and disenfranchised populations with poorer overall health.^15-17 In contrast to faculty clinics, residents treat patients who are more likely to be nonwhite and more likely to be reimbursed by Medicaid.¹⁸ The unique demographic makeup of hospital-based resident clinics raises questions about the preparedness and comfort of resident physicians in managing the nuances of health care delivery in these settings.¹⁰

Providing equitable care to marginalized populations within the constraints of 15- to 30-minute visits can be challenging to physicians and trainees. Even clinicians with the best of intentions may be impeded by a lack of familiarity with the daily realities of impoverished living conditions, implicit prejudice against people living in poverty, and adapting recommendations to varying levels of health literacy among patients.^19,20 Contending with these daunting obstacles can be discouraging. Given how entrenched certain institutional barriers are, questioning them may seem an exercise in futility, yet history demonstrates that residents can and have been empowered to improve tangible outcomes for vulnerable populations. In reflecting on approaches of the general medical education system, The Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation President George E. Thibault, MD, observed that, “When appropriately trained, deployed and incented, [residents] can help achieve institutional goals to improve quality, safety and efficiency.”²¹

Start Small But Dream Big

Action begins with awareness. Medical school and teaching hospital curricula are increasingly integrating educational exercises regarding the social determinants of health and populations with unmet needs. Medical training presents an exclusive opportunity to gain exposure to and familiarity with patient populations that one might not otherwise encounter. Immersion programs provide invaluable experience in tailoring health care delivery to the needs of vulnerable communities. Although opportunities for international rotations abound, domestic rotations among underserved populations can be just as transformative, including correctional medicine, homeless clinics, the Indian Health Service, and rural communities.

Create Partnerships to Broaden Impact of Service

Affecting the largest and most visible organ, skin disease often presents a substantial concern for patients and can herald systemic disease. The nature of dermatologic disease engenders close collaboration between general practitioners and specialists. For example, while resident-run or safety-net clinics characteristically center on providing holistic care for patients through internal medicine or primary care, these overworked and understaffed clinics often are in need of evaluation by specialists for specific concerns. Some clinic models feature dermatology faculty who volunteer routinely (ie, every 2 weeks, every month) to examine all the clinic’s patients presenting with concerns pertinent to the specialty. Drawing on their respective areas of expertise, general practitioners and dermatologists therefore can collaborate to connect disadvantaged patients with the specialized care they need.

Challenges Present Opportunities for Innovation

Adhering to the social distancing requirements of the COVID-19 pandemic protocol has driven clinicians to utilize innovative approaches to patient care. The rural-urban misdistribution of the dermatologist workforce has long been established, with rural patients often experiencing lengthy wait times to see a specialist.⁹ Both synchronous and asynchronous teledermatology modalities provide an ideal platform for triaging patients with dermatologic concerns who otherwise have meager access to a dermatologist.

Final Thoughts

Residency training is a prime opportunity to gain exposure to the broad spectrum of disease within dermatology as well as the diverse range of affected patients. Drawing on the aforementioned strategies, residents can leverage this knowledge in the service of underserved patients.

Remote cardiology clinic visits during COVID-19 were used more often by certain traditionally underserved patient groups, but were also associated with less frequent testing and prescribing, new research shows.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented shift in ambulatory cardiovascular care from in-person to remote visits,” lead author Neal Yuan, MD, a cardiology fellow at the Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

Their findings were published online April 5 in JAMA Network Open.

“We wanted to explore whether the transition to remote visits was associated with disparities in how patients accessed care, and also how this transition affected diagnostic test ordering and medication prescribing,” Dr. Yuan said.

The researchers used electronic health records data for all ambulatory cardiology visits at an urban, multisite health system in Los Angeles County during two periods: April 1 to Dec. 31, 2019, the pre-COVID era; and April 1 to Dec. 31, 2020, the COVID era.

The investigators compared patient characteristics and frequencies of medication ordering and cardiology-specific testing across four visit types: pre-COVID in person, used as reference; COVID-era in person; COVID-era video; and COVID-era telephone.

The study looked at 176,781 ambulatory cardiology visits. Of these visits, 87,182 were conducted in person in the pre-COVID period; 74,498 were conducted in person in the COVID era; 4,720 were COVID-era video visits; and 10,381 were COVID-era telephone visits.

In the study cohort, 79,572 patients (45.0%) were female, 127,080 patients (71.9%) were non-Hispanic White, and the mean age was 68.1 years (standard deviation, 17.0).

Patients accessing COVID-era remote visits were more likely to be Asian, Black, or Hispanic, to have private insurance, and to have cardiovascular comorbidities, such as hypertension and heart failure.

Also, patients whose visits were conducted by video were significantly younger than patients whose visits were conducted in person or by telephone (P < .001).

In addition, the study found that clinicians ordered fewer diagnostic tests, such as electrocardiograms and echocardiograms, and were less likely to order any medication, in the pre-COVID era than during the COVID era.

“If you don’t have a patient in front of you, it’s much more difficult to get a physical exam or obtain reliable vital signs,” said Dr. Yuan. Communication can sometimes be difficult, often because of technical issues, like a bad connection. “You might be more reticent to get testing or to prescribe medications if you don’t feel confident knowing what the patient’s vital signs are.”

In addition, he added, “a lot of medications used in the cardiology setting require monitoring patients’ kidney function and electrolytes, and if you can’t do that reliably, you might be more cautious about prescribing those types of medications.”
 

An eye-opening study

Cardiologist Nieca Goldberg, MD, medical director of the New York University Langone womens’ heart program and spokesperson for the American Heart Association, recounted her experience with telemedicine at the height of the pandemic in New York, when everything, including medical outpatient offices, had to close.

“We were experienced with telemedicine because we had started a virtual urgent care program well ahead of the pandemic,” she said. “We started using that to screen people with potential COVID symptoms so that they wouldn’t have to come into the hospital, the medical center, or to the offices and expose people. We learned that it was great to have the telemedicine option from the infectious disease standpoint, and I did visits like that for my own patient population.”

An equally if not more important finding from the study is the fact that telemedicine increased access to care among traditionally underserved demographics, she said.

“This is eye-opening, that you can actually improve access to care by doing telemedicine visits. It was really important to see that telemedicine has added benefit to the way we can see people in the health care system.”

Telemedicine visits had a positive impact at a time when people were isolated at home, Dr. Goldberg said.

“It was a way for them to connect with their doctor and in some ways it was more personal,” she added. “I actually got to meet some of my patients’ family members. It was like making a remote house call.”

Stable cardiology patients can take their blood pressure at home, weigh themselves, and take their own pulse to give an excellent set of vital signs that will indicate how they are doing, said Dr. Goldberg.

“During a remote visit, we can talk to the patient and notice whether or not they are short of breath or coughing, but we can’t listen to their heart or do an EKG or any of the traditional cardiac testing. Still, for someone who is not having symptoms and is able to reliably monitor their blood pressure and weight, a remote visit is sufficient to give you a good sense of how that patient is doing,” she said. “We can talk to them about their medications, any potential side effects, and we can use their blood pressure information to adjust their medications.”

Many patients are becoming more savvy about using tech gadgets and devices to monitor their health.

“Some of my patients were using Apple watches and the Kardia app to address their heart rate. Many had purchased inexpensive pulse oximeters to check their oxygen during the pandemic, and that also reads the pulse,” Dr. Goldberg said.

In-person visits were reserved for symptomatic cardiac patients, she explained.

“Initially during the pandemic, we did mostly telemedicine visits and we organized the office so that each cardiologist would come in 1 day a week to take care of symptomatic cardiac patients. In that way, we were able to socially distance – they provided us with [personal protective equipment]; at NYU there was no problem with that – and nobody waited in the waiting room. To this day, office issues are more efficient and people are not waiting in the waiting room,” she added. “Telemedicine improves access to health care in populations where such access is limited.”

Dr. Yuan’s research is supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Goldberg reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Remote cardiology clinic visits during COVID-19 were used more often by certain traditionally underserved patient groups, but were also associated with less frequent testing and prescribing, new research shows.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented shift in ambulatory cardiovascular care from in-person to remote visits,” lead author Neal Yuan, MD, a cardiology fellow at the Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

Their findings were published online April 5 in JAMA Network Open.

“We wanted to explore whether the transition to remote visits was associated with disparities in how patients accessed care, and also how this transition affected diagnostic test ordering and medication prescribing,” Dr. Yuan said.

The researchers used electronic health records data for all ambulatory cardiology visits at an urban, multisite health system in Los Angeles County during two periods: April 1 to Dec. 31, 2019, the pre-COVID era; and April 1 to Dec. 31, 2020, the COVID era.

The investigators compared patient characteristics and frequencies of medication ordering and cardiology-specific testing across four visit types: pre-COVID in person, used as reference; COVID-era in person; COVID-era video; and COVID-era telephone.

The study looked at 176,781 ambulatory cardiology visits. Of these visits, 87,182 were conducted in person in the pre-COVID period; 74,498 were conducted in person in the COVID era; 4,720 were COVID-era video visits; and 10,381 were COVID-era telephone visits.

In the study cohort, 79,572 patients (45.0%) were female, 127,080 patients (71.9%) were non-Hispanic White, and the mean age was 68.1 years (standard deviation, 17.0).

Patients accessing COVID-era remote visits were more likely to be Asian, Black, or Hispanic, to have private insurance, and to have cardiovascular comorbidities, such as hypertension and heart failure.

Also, patients whose visits were conducted by video were significantly younger than patients whose visits were conducted in person or by telephone (P < .001).

In addition, the study found that clinicians ordered fewer diagnostic tests, such as electrocardiograms and echocardiograms, and were less likely to order any medication, in the pre-COVID era than during the COVID era.

“If you don’t have a patient in front of you, it’s much more difficult to get a physical exam or obtain reliable vital signs,” said Dr. Yuan. Communication can sometimes be difficult, often because of technical issues, like a bad connection. “You might be more reticent to get testing or to prescribe medications if you don’t feel confident knowing what the patient’s vital signs are.”

In addition, he added, “a lot of medications used in the cardiology setting require monitoring patients’ kidney function and electrolytes, and if you can’t do that reliably, you might be more cautious about prescribing those types of medications.”
 

An eye-opening study

Cardiologist Nieca Goldberg, MD, medical director of the New York University Langone womens’ heart program and spokesperson for the American Heart Association, recounted her experience with telemedicine at the height of the pandemic in New York, when everything, including medical outpatient offices, had to close.

“We were experienced with telemedicine because we had started a virtual urgent care program well ahead of the pandemic,” she said. “We started using that to screen people with potential COVID symptoms so that they wouldn’t have to come into the hospital, the medical center, or to the offices and expose people. We learned that it was great to have the telemedicine option from the infectious disease standpoint, and I did visits like that for my own patient population.”

An equally if not more important finding from the study is the fact that telemedicine increased access to care among traditionally underserved demographics, she said.

“This is eye-opening, that you can actually improve access to care by doing telemedicine visits. It was really important to see that telemedicine has added benefit to the way we can see people in the health care system.”

Telemedicine visits had a positive impact at a time when people were isolated at home, Dr. Goldberg said.

“It was a way for them to connect with their doctor and in some ways it was more personal,” she added. “I actually got to meet some of my patients’ family members. It was like making a remote house call.”

Stable cardiology patients can take their blood pressure at home, weigh themselves, and take their own pulse to give an excellent set of vital signs that will indicate how they are doing, said Dr. Goldberg.

“During a remote visit, we can talk to the patient and notice whether or not they are short of breath or coughing, but we can’t listen to their heart or do an EKG or any of the traditional cardiac testing. Still, for someone who is not having symptoms and is able to reliably monitor their blood pressure and weight, a remote visit is sufficient to give you a good sense of how that patient is doing,” she said. “We can talk to them about their medications, any potential side effects, and we can use their blood pressure information to adjust their medications.”

Many patients are becoming more savvy about using tech gadgets and devices to monitor their health.

“Some of my patients were using Apple watches and the Kardia app to address their heart rate. Many had purchased inexpensive pulse oximeters to check their oxygen during the pandemic, and that also reads the pulse,” Dr. Goldberg said.

In-person visits were reserved for symptomatic cardiac patients, she explained.

“Initially during the pandemic, we did mostly telemedicine visits and we organized the office so that each cardiologist would come in 1 day a week to take care of symptomatic cardiac patients. In that way, we were able to socially distance – they provided us with [personal protective equipment]; at NYU there was no problem with that – and nobody waited in the waiting room. To this day, office issues are more efficient and people are not waiting in the waiting room,” she added. “Telemedicine improves access to health care in populations where such access is limited.”

Dr. Yuan’s research is supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Goldberg reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Remote cardiology clinic visits during COVID-19 were used more often by certain traditionally underserved patient groups, but were also associated with less frequent testing and prescribing, new research shows.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented shift in ambulatory cardiovascular care from in-person to remote visits,” lead author Neal Yuan, MD, a cardiology fellow at the Smidt Heart Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

Their findings were published online April 5 in JAMA Network Open.

“We wanted to explore whether the transition to remote visits was associated with disparities in how patients accessed care, and also how this transition affected diagnostic test ordering and medication prescribing,” Dr. Yuan said.

The researchers used electronic health records data for all ambulatory cardiology visits at an urban, multisite health system in Los Angeles County during two periods: April 1 to Dec. 31, 2019, the pre-COVID era; and April 1 to Dec. 31, 2020, the COVID era.

The investigators compared patient characteristics and frequencies of medication ordering and cardiology-specific testing across four visit types: pre-COVID in person, used as reference; COVID-era in person; COVID-era video; and COVID-era telephone.

The study looked at 176,781 ambulatory cardiology visits. Of these visits, 87,182 were conducted in person in the pre-COVID period; 74,498 were conducted in person in the COVID era; 4,720 were COVID-era video visits; and 10,381 were COVID-era telephone visits.

In the study cohort, 79,572 patients (45.0%) were female, 127,080 patients (71.9%) were non-Hispanic White, and the mean age was 68.1 years (standard deviation, 17.0).

Patients accessing COVID-era remote visits were more likely to be Asian, Black, or Hispanic, to have private insurance, and to have cardiovascular comorbidities, such as hypertension and heart failure.

Also, patients whose visits were conducted by video were significantly younger than patients whose visits were conducted in person or by telephone (P < .001).

In addition, the study found that clinicians ordered fewer diagnostic tests, such as electrocardiograms and echocardiograms, and were less likely to order any medication, in the pre-COVID era than during the COVID era.

“If you don’t have a patient in front of you, it’s much more difficult to get a physical exam or obtain reliable vital signs,” said Dr. Yuan. Communication can sometimes be difficult, often because of technical issues, like a bad connection. “You might be more reticent to get testing or to prescribe medications if you don’t feel confident knowing what the patient’s vital signs are.”

In addition, he added, “a lot of medications used in the cardiology setting require monitoring patients’ kidney function and electrolytes, and if you can’t do that reliably, you might be more cautious about prescribing those types of medications.”
 

An eye-opening study

Cardiologist Nieca Goldberg, MD, medical director of the New York University Langone womens’ heart program and spokesperson for the American Heart Association, recounted her experience with telemedicine at the height of the pandemic in New York, when everything, including medical outpatient offices, had to close.

“We were experienced with telemedicine because we had started a virtual urgent care program well ahead of the pandemic,” she said. “We started using that to screen people with potential COVID symptoms so that they wouldn’t have to come into the hospital, the medical center, or to the offices and expose people. We learned that it was great to have the telemedicine option from the infectious disease standpoint, and I did visits like that for my own patient population.”

An equally if not more important finding from the study is the fact that telemedicine increased access to care among traditionally underserved demographics, she said.

“This is eye-opening, that you can actually improve access to care by doing telemedicine visits. It was really important to see that telemedicine has added benefit to the way we can see people in the health care system.”

Telemedicine visits had a positive impact at a time when people were isolated at home, Dr. Goldberg said.

“It was a way for them to connect with their doctor and in some ways it was more personal,” she added. “I actually got to meet some of my patients’ family members. It was like making a remote house call.”

Stable cardiology patients can take their blood pressure at home, weigh themselves, and take their own pulse to give an excellent set of vital signs that will indicate how they are doing, said Dr. Goldberg.

“During a remote visit, we can talk to the patient and notice whether or not they are short of breath or coughing, but we can’t listen to their heart or do an EKG or any of the traditional cardiac testing. Still, for someone who is not having symptoms and is able to reliably monitor their blood pressure and weight, a remote visit is sufficient to give you a good sense of how that patient is doing,” she said. “We can talk to them about their medications, any potential side effects, and we can use their blood pressure information to adjust their medications.”

Many patients are becoming more savvy about using tech gadgets and devices to monitor their health.

“Some of my patients were using Apple watches and the Kardia app to address their heart rate. Many had purchased inexpensive pulse oximeters to check their oxygen during the pandemic, and that also reads the pulse,” Dr. Goldberg said.

In-person visits were reserved for symptomatic cardiac patients, she explained.

“Initially during the pandemic, we did mostly telemedicine visits and we organized the office so that each cardiologist would come in 1 day a week to take care of symptomatic cardiac patients. In that way, we were able to socially distance – they provided us with [personal protective equipment]; at NYU there was no problem with that – and nobody waited in the waiting room. To this day, office issues are more efficient and people are not waiting in the waiting room,” she added. “Telemedicine improves access to health care in populations where such access is limited.”

Dr. Yuan’s research is supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Goldberg reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

People who identify as transgender experience many health disparities, in addition to lack of access to quality care. The most commonly cited barrier is the lack of providers who are knowledgeable about transgender health care, according to past surveys.

Even those who do seek care often have unpleasant experiences. A 2015 survey conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality found that 33% of those who saw a health care provider reported at least one  unfavorable experience related to being transgender, such as being verbally harassed or refused treatment because of their gender identity. In fact, 23% of those surveyed say they did not seek health care they needed in the past year because of fear of being mistreated as a transgender person.

To find out how physicians can provide more compassionate, effective care for this group, this news organization spoke with K. Ashley Brandt, DO, gender-affirming surgeon and obstetrician/gynecologist in West Reading, Penn. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Question: Surveys have shown that many people who identify as transgender will seek only transition care, not primary or preventive care. Why is that?

Dr. Brandt: My answer is multifactorial. Transgender patients do seek primary care – just not as readily. There’s a lot of misconceptions about health care needs for the LGBT community in general. For example, lesbian or bisexual women may be not as well informed about the need for Pap smears compared with their heterosexual counterparts. These misconceptions are further exacerbated in the transgender community.

The fact that a lot of patients seek only transition-related care, but not preventive services, such as primary care and gynecologic care, is also related to fears of discrimination and lack of education of providers. These patients are afraid when they walk into an office that they will be misgendered or their physician won’t be familiar with their health care needs.

What can clinics and clinicians do to create a safe and welcoming environment?

Dr. Brandt: It starts with educating office staff about terminology and gender identities.

A key feature of our EHR is the sexual orientation and gender identity platform, which asks questions about a patient’s gender identity, sexual orientation, sex assigned at birth, and organ inventory. These data are then found in the patient information tab and are just as relevant as their insurance status, age, and date of birth.

There are many ways a doctor’s office can signal to patients that they are inclusive. They can hang LGBTQ-friendly flags or symbols or a sign saying, “We have an anti-discrimination policy” in the waiting room.  A welcoming environment can also be achieved by revising patient questionnaires or forms so that they aren’t gender-specific or binary.

Given that the patient may have limited contact with a primary care clinician, how do you prioritize what you address during the visit?

Dr. Brandt: Similar to cisgender patients, it depends initially on the age of the patient and the reason for the visit. The priorities of an otherwise healthy transgender patient in their 20s are going to be largely the same as for a cisgender patient of the same age. As patients age in the primary care world, you’re addressing more issues, such as colorectal screening, lipid disorders, and mammograms, and that doesn’t change. For the most part, the problems that you address should be specific for that age group.

It becomes more complicated when you add in factors such as hormone therapy and whether patients have had any type of gender-affirming surgery. Those things can change the usual recommendations for screening or risk assessment. We try to figure out what routine health maintenance and cancer screening a patient needs based on age and risk factors, in addition to hormone status and surgical state.

Do you think that many physicians are educated about the care of underserved populations such as transgender patients?

Dr. Brandt: Yes and no. We are definitely getting better at it. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a committee opinion highlighting transgender care. So organizations are starting to prioritize these populations and recognize that they are, in fact, underserved and they have special health care needs.

However, the knowledge gaps are still pretty big. I get calls daily from providers asking questions about how to manage patients on hormones, or how to examine a patient who has undergone a vaginoplasty. I hear a lot of horror stories from transgender patients who had their hormones stopped for absurd and medically misinformed reasons.

But I definitely think it’s getting better and it’s being addressed at all levels – the medical school level, the residency level, and the attending level. It just takes time to inform people and for people to get used to the health care needs of these patients.

What should physicians keep in mind when treating patients who identify as transgender?

Dr. Brandt: First and foremost, understanding the terminology and the difference between gender identity, sex, and sexual orientation. Being familiar with that language and being able to speak that language very comfortably and not being awkward about it is a really important thing for primary care physicians and indeed any physician who treats transgender patients.

Physicians should also be aware that any underserved population has higher rates of mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety. Obviously, that goes along with being underserved and the stigma and the disparities that exist for these patients. Having providers educate themselves about what those disparities are and how they impact a patient’s daily life and health is paramount to knowing how to treat patients.

What are your top health concerns for these patients and how do you address them?

Dr. Brandt: I think mental health and safety is probably the number one for me. About 41% of transgender adults have attempted suicide. That number is roughly 51% in transgender youth. That is an astonishing number. These patients have much higher rates of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and sexual assault, especially trans women and trans women of color. So understanding those statistics is huge.

Obesity, smoking, and substance abuse are my next three. Again, those are things that should be addressed at any visit, regardless of the gender identity or sexual orientation of the patient, but those rates are particularly high in this population.

Fertility and long-term care for patients should be addressed. Many patients who identify as transgender are told they can’t have a family. As a primary care physician, you may see a patient before they are seen by an ob.gyn. or surgeon. Talking about what a patient’s long-term life goals are with fertility and family planning, and what that looks like for them, is a big thing for me. Other providers may not feel that’s a concern, but I believe it should be discussed before initiation of hormone therapy, which can significantly impact fertility in some patients.

Are there nuances to the physical examination that primary care physicians should be aware of when dealing with transmasculine patients vs. transfeminine patients?

Dr. Brandt: Absolutely. And this interview can’t cover the scope of those nuances. An example that comes to mind is the genital exam. For transgender women who have undergone a vaginoplasty, the pelvic exam can be very affirming. Whereas for transgender men, a gynecologic exam can significantly exacerbate dysphoria and there are ways to conduct the exam to limit this discomfort and avoid creating a traumatic experience for the patient. It’s important to be aware that the genital exam, or any type of genitourinary exam, can be either affirming or not affirming.

Sexually transmitted infections are up in the general population, and the trans population is at even higher risk. What should physicians think about when they assess this risk?

Dr. Brandt: It’s really important for primary care clinicians and for gynecologists to learn to be comfortable talking about sexual practices, because what people do behind closed doors is really a key to how to counsel patients about safe sex.

People are well aware of the need to have safe sex. However, depending on the type of sex that you’re having, what body parts go where, what is truly safe can vary and people may not know, for example, to wear a condom when sex toys are involved or that a transgender male on testosterone can become pregnant during penile-vaginal intercourse. Providers really should be very educated on the array of sexual practices that people have and how to counsel them about those. They should know how to ask patients the gender identity of their sexual partners, the sexual orientation of their partners, and what parts go where during sex.

Providers should also talk to patients about PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis], whether they identify as cisgender or transgender. My trans patients tend to be a lot more educated about PrEP than other patients. It’s something that many of the residents, even in a standard gynecologic clinic, for example, don’t talk to cisgender patients about because of the stigma surrounding HIV. Many providers still think that the only people who are at risk for HIV are men who have sex with men. And while those rates are higher in some populations, depending on sexual practices, those aren’t the only patients who qualify for PrEP.

Overall, in order to counsel patients about STIs and safe sexual practices, providers should learn to be comfortable talking about sex.

Do you have any strategies on how to make the appointment more successful in addressing those issues?

Dr. Brandt: Bedside manner is a hard thing to teach, and comfort in talking about sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation can vary – but there are a lot of continuing medical education courses that physicians can utilize through the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.

If providers start to notice an influx of patients who identify as transgender or if they want to start seeing transgender patients, it’s really important for them to have that training before they start interacting with patients. In all of medicine, we sort of learn as we go, but this patient population has been subjected to discrimination, violence, error, and misgendering. They have dealt with providers who didn’t understand their health care needs. While this field is evolving, knowing how to appropriately address a patient (using their correct name, pronouns, etc.) is an absolute must.

That needs to be part of a provider’s routine vernacular and not something that they sort of stumble through. You can scare a patient away as soon as they walk into the office with an uneducated front desk staff and things that are seen in the office. Seeking out those educational tools, being aware of your own deficits as a provider and the educational needs of your office, and addressing those needs is really key.

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

People who identify as transgender experience many health disparities, in addition to lack of access to quality care. The most commonly cited barrier is the lack of providers who are knowledgeable about transgender health care, according to past surveys.

Even those who do seek care often have unpleasant experiences. A 2015 survey conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality found that 33% of those who saw a health care provider reported at least one  unfavorable experience related to being transgender, such as being verbally harassed or refused treatment because of their gender identity. In fact, 23% of those surveyed say they did not seek health care they needed in the past year because of fear of being mistreated as a transgender person.

To find out how physicians can provide more compassionate, effective care for this group, this news organization spoke with K. Ashley Brandt, DO, gender-affirming surgeon and obstetrician/gynecologist in West Reading, Penn. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Question: Surveys have shown that many people who identify as transgender will seek only transition care, not primary or preventive care. Why is that?

Dr. Brandt: My answer is multifactorial. Transgender patients do seek primary care – just not as readily. There’s a lot of misconceptions about health care needs for the LGBT community in general. For example, lesbian or bisexual women may be not as well informed about the need for Pap smears compared with their heterosexual counterparts. These misconceptions are further exacerbated in the transgender community.

The fact that a lot of patients seek only transition-related care, but not preventive services, such as primary care and gynecologic care, is also related to fears of discrimination and lack of education of providers. These patients are afraid when they walk into an office that they will be misgendered or their physician won’t be familiar with their health care needs.

What can clinics and clinicians do to create a safe and welcoming environment?

Dr. Brandt: It starts with educating office staff about terminology and gender identities.

A key feature of our EHR is the sexual orientation and gender identity platform, which asks questions about a patient’s gender identity, sexual orientation, sex assigned at birth, and organ inventory. These data are then found in the patient information tab and are just as relevant as their insurance status, age, and date of birth.

There are many ways a doctor’s office can signal to patients that they are inclusive. They can hang LGBTQ-friendly flags or symbols or a sign saying, “We have an anti-discrimination policy” in the waiting room.  A welcoming environment can also be achieved by revising patient questionnaires or forms so that they aren’t gender-specific or binary.

Given that the patient may have limited contact with a primary care clinician, how do you prioritize what you address during the visit?

Dr. Brandt: Similar to cisgender patients, it depends initially on the age of the patient and the reason for the visit. The priorities of an otherwise healthy transgender patient in their 20s are going to be largely the same as for a cisgender patient of the same age. As patients age in the primary care world, you’re addressing more issues, such as colorectal screening, lipid disorders, and mammograms, and that doesn’t change. For the most part, the problems that you address should be specific for that age group.

It becomes more complicated when you add in factors such as hormone therapy and whether patients have had any type of gender-affirming surgery. Those things can change the usual recommendations for screening or risk assessment. We try to figure out what routine health maintenance and cancer screening a patient needs based on age and risk factors, in addition to hormone status and surgical state.

Do you think that many physicians are educated about the care of underserved populations such as transgender patients?

Dr. Brandt: Yes and no. We are definitely getting better at it. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a committee opinion highlighting transgender care. So organizations are starting to prioritize these populations and recognize that they are, in fact, underserved and they have special health care needs.

However, the knowledge gaps are still pretty big. I get calls daily from providers asking questions about how to manage patients on hormones, or how to examine a patient who has undergone a vaginoplasty. I hear a lot of horror stories from transgender patients who had their hormones stopped for absurd and medically misinformed reasons.

But I definitely think it’s getting better and it’s being addressed at all levels – the medical school level, the residency level, and the attending level. It just takes time to inform people and for people to get used to the health care needs of these patients.

What should physicians keep in mind when treating patients who identify as transgender?

Dr. Brandt: First and foremost, understanding the terminology and the difference between gender identity, sex, and sexual orientation. Being familiar with that language and being able to speak that language very comfortably and not being awkward about it is a really important thing for primary care physicians and indeed any physician who treats transgender patients.

Physicians should also be aware that any underserved population has higher rates of mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety. Obviously, that goes along with being underserved and the stigma and the disparities that exist for these patients. Having providers educate themselves about what those disparities are and how they impact a patient’s daily life and health is paramount to knowing how to treat patients.

What are your top health concerns for these patients and how do you address them?

Dr. Brandt: I think mental health and safety is probably the number one for me. About 41% of transgender adults have attempted suicide. That number is roughly 51% in transgender youth. That is an astonishing number. These patients have much higher rates of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and sexual assault, especially trans women and trans women of color. So understanding those statistics is huge.

Obesity, smoking, and substance abuse are my next three. Again, those are things that should be addressed at any visit, regardless of the gender identity or sexual orientation of the patient, but those rates are particularly high in this population.

Fertility and long-term care for patients should be addressed. Many patients who identify as transgender are told they can’t have a family. As a primary care physician, you may see a patient before they are seen by an ob.gyn. or surgeon. Talking about what a patient’s long-term life goals are with fertility and family planning, and what that looks like for them, is a big thing for me. Other providers may not feel that’s a concern, but I believe it should be discussed before initiation of hormone therapy, which can significantly impact fertility in some patients.

Are there nuances to the physical examination that primary care physicians should be aware of when dealing with transmasculine patients vs. transfeminine patients?

Dr. Brandt: Absolutely. And this interview can’t cover the scope of those nuances. An example that comes to mind is the genital exam. For transgender women who have undergone a vaginoplasty, the pelvic exam can be very affirming. Whereas for transgender men, a gynecologic exam can significantly exacerbate dysphoria and there are ways to conduct the exam to limit this discomfort and avoid creating a traumatic experience for the patient. It’s important to be aware that the genital exam, or any type of genitourinary exam, can be either affirming or not affirming.

Sexually transmitted infections are up in the general population, and the trans population is at even higher risk. What should physicians think about when they assess this risk?

Dr. Brandt: It’s really important for primary care clinicians and for gynecologists to learn to be comfortable talking about sexual practices, because what people do behind closed doors is really a key to how to counsel patients about safe sex.

People are well aware of the need to have safe sex. However, depending on the type of sex that you’re having, what body parts go where, what is truly safe can vary and people may not know, for example, to wear a condom when sex toys are involved or that a transgender male on testosterone can become pregnant during penile-vaginal intercourse. Providers really should be very educated on the array of sexual practices that people have and how to counsel them about those. They should know how to ask patients the gender identity of their sexual partners, the sexual orientation of their partners, and what parts go where during sex.

Providers should also talk to patients about PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis], whether they identify as cisgender or transgender. My trans patients tend to be a lot more educated about PrEP than other patients. It’s something that many of the residents, even in a standard gynecologic clinic, for example, don’t talk to cisgender patients about because of the stigma surrounding HIV. Many providers still think that the only people who are at risk for HIV are men who have sex with men. And while those rates are higher in some populations, depending on sexual practices, those aren’t the only patients who qualify for PrEP.

Overall, in order to counsel patients about STIs and safe sexual practices, providers should learn to be comfortable talking about sex.

Do you have any strategies on how to make the appointment more successful in addressing those issues?

Dr. Brandt: Bedside manner is a hard thing to teach, and comfort in talking about sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation can vary – but there are a lot of continuing medical education courses that physicians can utilize through the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.

If providers start to notice an influx of patients who identify as transgender or if they want to start seeing transgender patients, it’s really important for them to have that training before they start interacting with patients. In all of medicine, we sort of learn as we go, but this patient population has been subjected to discrimination, violence, error, and misgendering. They have dealt with providers who didn’t understand their health care needs. While this field is evolving, knowing how to appropriately address a patient (using their correct name, pronouns, etc.) is an absolute must.

That needs to be part of a provider’s routine vernacular and not something that they sort of stumble through. You can scare a patient away as soon as they walk into the office with an uneducated front desk staff and things that are seen in the office. Seeking out those educational tools, being aware of your own deficits as a provider and the educational needs of your office, and addressing those needs is really key.

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

People who identify as transgender experience many health disparities, in addition to lack of access to quality care. The most commonly cited barrier is the lack of providers who are knowledgeable about transgender health care, according to past surveys.

Even those who do seek care often have unpleasant experiences. A 2015 survey conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality found that 33% of those who saw a health care provider reported at least one  unfavorable experience related to being transgender, such as being verbally harassed or refused treatment because of their gender identity. In fact, 23% of those surveyed say they did not seek health care they needed in the past year because of fear of being mistreated as a transgender person.

To find out how physicians can provide more compassionate, effective care for this group, this news organization spoke with K. Ashley Brandt, DO, gender-affirming surgeon and obstetrician/gynecologist in West Reading, Penn. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Question: Surveys have shown that many people who identify as transgender will seek only transition care, not primary or preventive care. Why is that?

Dr. Brandt: My answer is multifactorial. Transgender patients do seek primary care – just not as readily. There’s a lot of misconceptions about health care needs for the LGBT community in general. For example, lesbian or bisexual women may be not as well informed about the need for Pap smears compared with their heterosexual counterparts. These misconceptions are further exacerbated in the transgender community.

The fact that a lot of patients seek only transition-related care, but not preventive services, such as primary care and gynecologic care, is also related to fears of discrimination and lack of education of providers. These patients are afraid when they walk into an office that they will be misgendered or their physician won’t be familiar with their health care needs.

What can clinics and clinicians do to create a safe and welcoming environment?

Dr. Brandt: It starts with educating office staff about terminology and gender identities.

A key feature of our EHR is the sexual orientation and gender identity platform, which asks questions about a patient’s gender identity, sexual orientation, sex assigned at birth, and organ inventory. These data are then found in the patient information tab and are just as relevant as their insurance status, age, and date of birth.

There are many ways a doctor’s office can signal to patients that they are inclusive. They can hang LGBTQ-friendly flags or symbols or a sign saying, “We have an anti-discrimination policy” in the waiting room.  A welcoming environment can also be achieved by revising patient questionnaires or forms so that they aren’t gender-specific or binary.

Given that the patient may have limited contact with a primary care clinician, how do you prioritize what you address during the visit?

Dr. Brandt: Similar to cisgender patients, it depends initially on the age of the patient and the reason for the visit. The priorities of an otherwise healthy transgender patient in their 20s are going to be largely the same as for a cisgender patient of the same age. As patients age in the primary care world, you’re addressing more issues, such as colorectal screening, lipid disorders, and mammograms, and that doesn’t change. For the most part, the problems that you address should be specific for that age group.

It becomes more complicated when you add in factors such as hormone therapy and whether patients have had any type of gender-affirming surgery. Those things can change the usual recommendations for screening or risk assessment. We try to figure out what routine health maintenance and cancer screening a patient needs based on age and risk factors, in addition to hormone status and surgical state.

Do you think that many physicians are educated about the care of underserved populations such as transgender patients?

Dr. Brandt: Yes and no. We are definitely getting better at it. For example, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a committee opinion highlighting transgender care. So organizations are starting to prioritize these populations and recognize that they are, in fact, underserved and they have special health care needs.

However, the knowledge gaps are still pretty big. I get calls daily from providers asking questions about how to manage patients on hormones, or how to examine a patient who has undergone a vaginoplasty. I hear a lot of horror stories from transgender patients who had their hormones stopped for absurd and medically misinformed reasons.

But I definitely think it’s getting better and it’s being addressed at all levels – the medical school level, the residency level, and the attending level. It just takes time to inform people and for people to get used to the health care needs of these patients.

What should physicians keep in mind when treating patients who identify as transgender?

Dr. Brandt: First and foremost, understanding the terminology and the difference between gender identity, sex, and sexual orientation. Being familiar with that language and being able to speak that language very comfortably and not being awkward about it is a really important thing for primary care physicians and indeed any physician who treats transgender patients.

Physicians should also be aware that any underserved population has higher rates of mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety. Obviously, that goes along with being underserved and the stigma and the disparities that exist for these patients. Having providers educate themselves about what those disparities are and how they impact a patient’s daily life and health is paramount to knowing how to treat patients.

What are your top health concerns for these patients and how do you address them?

Dr. Brandt: I think mental health and safety is probably the number one for me. About 41% of transgender adults have attempted suicide. That number is roughly 51% in transgender youth. That is an astonishing number. These patients have much higher rates of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and sexual assault, especially trans women and trans women of color. So understanding those statistics is huge.

Obesity, smoking, and substance abuse are my next three. Again, those are things that should be addressed at any visit, regardless of the gender identity or sexual orientation of the patient, but those rates are particularly high in this population.

Fertility and long-term care for patients should be addressed. Many patients who identify as transgender are told they can’t have a family. As a primary care physician, you may see a patient before they are seen by an ob.gyn. or surgeon. Talking about what a patient’s long-term life goals are with fertility and family planning, and what that looks like for them, is a big thing for me. Other providers may not feel that’s a concern, but I believe it should be discussed before initiation of hormone therapy, which can significantly impact fertility in some patients.

Are there nuances to the physical examination that primary care physicians should be aware of when dealing with transmasculine patients vs. transfeminine patients?

Dr. Brandt: Absolutely. And this interview can’t cover the scope of those nuances. An example that comes to mind is the genital exam. For transgender women who have undergone a vaginoplasty, the pelvic exam can be very affirming. Whereas for transgender men, a gynecologic exam can significantly exacerbate dysphoria and there are ways to conduct the exam to limit this discomfort and avoid creating a traumatic experience for the patient. It’s important to be aware that the genital exam, or any type of genitourinary exam, can be either affirming or not affirming.

Sexually transmitted infections are up in the general population, and the trans population is at even higher risk. What should physicians think about when they assess this risk?

Dr. Brandt: It’s really important for primary care clinicians and for gynecologists to learn to be comfortable talking about sexual practices, because what people do behind closed doors is really a key to how to counsel patients about safe sex.

People are well aware of the need to have safe sex. However, depending on the type of sex that you’re having, what body parts go where, what is truly safe can vary and people may not know, for example, to wear a condom when sex toys are involved or that a transgender male on testosterone can become pregnant during penile-vaginal intercourse. Providers really should be very educated on the array of sexual practices that people have and how to counsel them about those. They should know how to ask patients the gender identity of their sexual partners, the sexual orientation of their partners, and what parts go where during sex.

Providers should also talk to patients about PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis], whether they identify as cisgender or transgender. My trans patients tend to be a lot more educated about PrEP than other patients. It’s something that many of the residents, even in a standard gynecologic clinic, for example, don’t talk to cisgender patients about because of the stigma surrounding HIV. Many providers still think that the only people who are at risk for HIV are men who have sex with men. And while those rates are higher in some populations, depending on sexual practices, those aren’t the only patients who qualify for PrEP.

Overall, in order to counsel patients about STIs and safe sexual practices, providers should learn to be comfortable talking about sex.

Do you have any strategies on how to make the appointment more successful in addressing those issues?

Dr. Brandt: Bedside manner is a hard thing to teach, and comfort in talking about sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation can vary – but there are a lot of continuing medical education courses that physicians can utilize through the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.

If providers start to notice an influx of patients who identify as transgender or if they want to start seeing transgender patients, it’s really important for them to have that training before they start interacting with patients. In all of medicine, we sort of learn as we go, but this patient population has been subjected to discrimination, violence, error, and misgendering. They have dealt with providers who didn’t understand their health care needs. While this field is evolving, knowing how to appropriately address a patient (using their correct name, pronouns, etc.) is an absolute must.

That needs to be part of a provider’s routine vernacular and not something that they sort of stumble through. You can scare a patient away as soon as they walk into the office with an uneducated front desk staff and things that are seen in the office. Seeking out those educational tools, being aware of your own deficits as a provider and the educational needs of your office, and addressing those needs is really key.

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

Although recent months have seen the arrival of several promising vaccines to combat COVID-19, many researchers have been concerned about the shortage of Black and Latinx volunteers in their pivotal trials.

Sean Warren/iStockphoto.com

Minority groups have long been underrepresented in clinical research. The pandemic’s inequitable fallout has heightened the need for more inclusive COVID-19 trials. By one estimate, Black Americans are three times more likely to become infected with SARS-Cov-2 and twice as likely to die from it, compared with their White counterparts.

It was therefore welcome news this past November when the Maryland-based biotech company Novavax unveiled their plans to boost participation among specific minority groups during the phase 3 trial of their COVID-19 vaccine candidate NVX-CoV2373. To help them in their efforts, the company tapped Howard University, in Washington, D.C., to be a clinical test site. The goal was to enroll 300 Black and Latinx volunteers through a recruitment registry at the Coronavirus Prevention Network.

“We have seen quite a good number of participants in the registry, and many are African American, who are the ones we are trying to reach in the trial,” explained Siham Mahgoub, MD, medical director of the Center of Infectious Diseases Management and Research and principal investigator for the Novavax trial at Howard University, Washington. “It’s very important for people of color to participate in the trial because we want to make sure these vaccines work in people of color,” Dr. Mahgoub said.

Over the years, Howard University has hosted several important clinical trials and studies, and its participation in the multi-institutional Georgetown–Howard Universities Center for Clinical and Translational Science consortium brings crucial infrastructural value. By bringing this vaccine trial to one of the most esteemed historically Black colleges or universities (HBCUs), researchers hoped to address a sense of hesitancy among possible participants that is prompted in part by the tragic history of medical testing in the Black community.

“The community trusts Howard,” said Dr. Mahgoub. “I think it’s great having Howard and an HBCU host this trial, because these are people who look like them.”

Novavax deliberately sought an HBCU to work with on this trial to help people of color feel more at ease and increase minority participation. Lisa M. Dunkle, MD, vice president and global medical lead for coronavirus vaccine at Novavax, explained that, in addition to Howard being located close to the company’s headquarters, the university seemed like a great fit for the overall mission.

“As part of our goal to achieve a representative trial population that includes communities who are disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, we sought out some of the HBCUs to include in our trial sites. We hoped that this might encourage people of color to enroll and to increase their comfort level with vaccines in general,” Dr. Dunkle said.
 

Building more representative clinical trials

For decades, research on some of the most groundbreaking vaccines and treatments have been based on the results of studies conducted with predominately White participants, despite the fact that a much more demographically varied general population would ultimately receive them. This has led to calls to include people of different races and ethnic backgrounds in trials.

Homogeneity in clinical trials is discouraged, but trials are not heavily regulated in this regard. In 1993, Congress passed the Revitalization Act, which requires that trials that are conducted by the National Institutes of Health include women and members of minority groups among their cohorts. However, the number or proportion of such participants is not specified.

Underrepresentation in clinical trials also reflects a general unwillingness by members of ethnic minorities to volunteer because of the deeply unsettling history of such trials in minority communities. Among some Black persons, it is not uncommon for names like Tuskegee, Henrietta Lacks, and J. Marion Simms to be mentioned when giving reasons for not participating.

“There is certainly some dark history in how minorities have been treated by our health care system, and it’s not surprising that there is some fear and distrust,” said Dr. Dunkle. “By recruiting people of color into clinical trials that are governed with strict standards, we can begin to change perceptions and attitudes.”

Vaccine hesitancy is not only rooted in the past. The current state of medical care also has some potential trial participants worried. Misinformation, inequity in health care access, and low health literacy contribute to the current fears of scientific development.
 

A trial designed to engender trust

Having information about the vaccine come from trusted voices in the community is a key means of overcoming hesitancy. Howard University President Wayne Frederick, MD, reached out to a pastor of a local Black church to have more participants enroll in the trial. One who answered the call to action was Stephanie Williams, an elementary school teacher in Montgomery County, Maryland. When she saw that her pastor was participating in the Novavax trial and when she considered the devastation she had seen from COVID-19, she was on board.

“We had about three sessions where he shared his experiences. He also shared some links to read about it more,” Ms. Williams said. “When I saw that he took it, that gave me a lot of confidence. Since I’m going be going into the classroom, I wanted to be sure that I was well protected.”

Transparency is key to gaining more participation, explained Dr. Maghoub. Webinar-based information sessions have proven particularly important in achieving this.

“We do a lot of explaining in very simple language to make sure everyone understands about the vaccine. The participants have time to ask questions during the webinar, and at any time [during the trial], if a participant feels that it is not right for them, they can stop. They have time to learn about the trial and give consent. People often think they are like guinea pigs in trials, but they are not. They must give consent.”

There are signs that the approach has been successful. Over a period of 4-5 weeks, the Howard site enrolled 150 participants, of whom 30% were Black and 20% were Latinx.

Novavax has been in business for more than 3 decades but hasn’t seen the booming success that their competitors have. The company has noted progress in developing vaccines against Middle East respiratory syndrome and severe acute respiratory syndrome. However, they missed the mark in clinical trials, failing twice in 3 years to develop a respiratory syncytial virus vaccine administered through maternal immunizations.

From being on the verge of closing, Novavax has since made a dramatic turnaround after former President Trump awarded the company $1.6 billion dollars in July 2020 as part of Operation Warp Speed. If trial results are promising, the Novavax vaccine could enter the market in a few months, representing not only a new therapeutic option but perhaps a new model for building inclusivity in clinical trials.

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

Although recent months have seen the arrival of several promising vaccines to combat COVID-19, many researchers have been concerned about the shortage of Black and Latinx volunteers in their pivotal trials.

Sean Warren/iStockphoto.com

Minority groups have long been underrepresented in clinical research. The pandemic’s inequitable fallout has heightened the need for more inclusive COVID-19 trials. By one estimate, Black Americans are three times more likely to become infected with SARS-Cov-2 and twice as likely to die from it, compared with their White counterparts.

It was therefore welcome news this past November when the Maryland-based biotech company Novavax unveiled their plans to boost participation among specific minority groups during the phase 3 trial of their COVID-19 vaccine candidate NVX-CoV2373. To help them in their efforts, the company tapped Howard University, in Washington, D.C., to be a clinical test site. The goal was to enroll 300 Black and Latinx volunteers through a recruitment registry at the Coronavirus Prevention Network.

“We have seen quite a good number of participants in the registry, and many are African American, who are the ones we are trying to reach in the trial,” explained Siham Mahgoub, MD, medical director of the Center of Infectious Diseases Management and Research and principal investigator for the Novavax trial at Howard University, Washington. “It’s very important for people of color to participate in the trial because we want to make sure these vaccines work in people of color,” Dr. Mahgoub said.

Over the years, Howard University has hosted several important clinical trials and studies, and its participation in the multi-institutional Georgetown–Howard Universities Center for Clinical and Translational Science consortium brings crucial infrastructural value. By bringing this vaccine trial to one of the most esteemed historically Black colleges or universities (HBCUs), researchers hoped to address a sense of hesitancy among possible participants that is prompted in part by the tragic history of medical testing in the Black community.

“The community trusts Howard,” said Dr. Mahgoub. “I think it’s great having Howard and an HBCU host this trial, because these are people who look like them.”

Novavax deliberately sought an HBCU to work with on this trial to help people of color feel more at ease and increase minority participation. Lisa M. Dunkle, MD, vice president and global medical lead for coronavirus vaccine at Novavax, explained that, in addition to Howard being located close to the company’s headquarters, the university seemed like a great fit for the overall mission.

“As part of our goal to achieve a representative trial population that includes communities who are disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, we sought out some of the HBCUs to include in our trial sites. We hoped that this might encourage people of color to enroll and to increase their comfort level with vaccines in general,” Dr. Dunkle said.
 

Building more representative clinical trials

For decades, research on some of the most groundbreaking vaccines and treatments have been based on the results of studies conducted with predominately White participants, despite the fact that a much more demographically varied general population would ultimately receive them. This has led to calls to include people of different races and ethnic backgrounds in trials.

Homogeneity in clinical trials is discouraged, but trials are not heavily regulated in this regard. In 1993, Congress passed the Revitalization Act, which requires that trials that are conducted by the National Institutes of Health include women and members of minority groups among their cohorts. However, the number or proportion of such participants is not specified.

Underrepresentation in clinical trials also reflects a general unwillingness by members of ethnic minorities to volunteer because of the deeply unsettling history of such trials in minority communities. Among some Black persons, it is not uncommon for names like Tuskegee, Henrietta Lacks, and J. Marion Simms to be mentioned when giving reasons for not participating.

“There is certainly some dark history in how minorities have been treated by our health care system, and it’s not surprising that there is some fear and distrust,” said Dr. Dunkle. “By recruiting people of color into clinical trials that are governed with strict standards, we can begin to change perceptions and attitudes.”

Vaccine hesitancy is not only rooted in the past. The current state of medical care also has some potential trial participants worried. Misinformation, inequity in health care access, and low health literacy contribute to the current fears of scientific development.
 

A trial designed to engender trust

Having information about the vaccine come from trusted voices in the community is a key means of overcoming hesitancy. Howard University President Wayne Frederick, MD, reached out to a pastor of a local Black church to have more participants enroll in the trial. One who answered the call to action was Stephanie Williams, an elementary school teacher in Montgomery County, Maryland. When she saw that her pastor was participating in the Novavax trial and when she considered the devastation she had seen from COVID-19, she was on board.

“We had about three sessions where he shared his experiences. He also shared some links to read about it more,” Ms. Williams said. “When I saw that he took it, that gave me a lot of confidence. Since I’m going be going into the classroom, I wanted to be sure that I was well protected.”

Transparency is key to gaining more participation, explained Dr. Maghoub. Webinar-based information sessions have proven particularly important in achieving this.

“We do a lot of explaining in very simple language to make sure everyone understands about the vaccine. The participants have time to ask questions during the webinar, and at any time [during the trial], if a participant feels that it is not right for them, they can stop. They have time to learn about the trial and give consent. People often think they are like guinea pigs in trials, but they are not. They must give consent.”

There are signs that the approach has been successful. Over a period of 4-5 weeks, the Howard site enrolled 150 participants, of whom 30% were Black and 20% were Latinx.

Novavax has been in business for more than 3 decades but hasn’t seen the booming success that their competitors have. The company has noted progress in developing vaccines against Middle East respiratory syndrome and severe acute respiratory syndrome. However, they missed the mark in clinical trials, failing twice in 3 years to develop a respiratory syncytial virus vaccine administered through maternal immunizations.

From being on the verge of closing, Novavax has since made a dramatic turnaround after former President Trump awarded the company $1.6 billion dollars in July 2020 as part of Operation Warp Speed. If trial results are promising, the Novavax vaccine could enter the market in a few months, representing not only a new therapeutic option but perhaps a new model for building inclusivity in clinical trials.

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

Although recent months have seen the arrival of several promising vaccines to combat COVID-19, many researchers have been concerned about the shortage of Black and Latinx volunteers in their pivotal trials.

Sean Warren/iStockphoto.com

Minority groups have long been underrepresented in clinical research. The pandemic’s inequitable fallout has heightened the need for more inclusive COVID-19 trials. By one estimate, Black Americans are three times more likely to become infected with SARS-Cov-2 and twice as likely to die from it, compared with their White counterparts.

It was therefore welcome news this past November when the Maryland-based biotech company Novavax unveiled their plans to boost participation among specific minority groups during the phase 3 trial of their COVID-19 vaccine candidate NVX-CoV2373. To help them in their efforts, the company tapped Howard University, in Washington, D.C., to be a clinical test site. The goal was to enroll 300 Black and Latinx volunteers through a recruitment registry at the Coronavirus Prevention Network.

“We have seen quite a good number of participants in the registry, and many are African American, who are the ones we are trying to reach in the trial,” explained Siham Mahgoub, MD, medical director of the Center of Infectious Diseases Management and Research and principal investigator for the Novavax trial at Howard University, Washington. “It’s very important for people of color to participate in the trial because we want to make sure these vaccines work in people of color,” Dr. Mahgoub said.

Over the years, Howard University has hosted several important clinical trials and studies, and its participation in the multi-institutional Georgetown–Howard Universities Center for Clinical and Translational Science consortium brings crucial infrastructural value. By bringing this vaccine trial to one of the most esteemed historically Black colleges or universities (HBCUs), researchers hoped to address a sense of hesitancy among possible participants that is prompted in part by the tragic history of medical testing in the Black community.

“The community trusts Howard,” said Dr. Mahgoub. “I think it’s great having Howard and an HBCU host this trial, because these are people who look like them.”

Novavax deliberately sought an HBCU to work with on this trial to help people of color feel more at ease and increase minority participation. Lisa M. Dunkle, MD, vice president and global medical lead for coronavirus vaccine at Novavax, explained that, in addition to Howard being located close to the company’s headquarters, the university seemed like a great fit for the overall mission.

“As part of our goal to achieve a representative trial population that includes communities who are disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, we sought out some of the HBCUs to include in our trial sites. We hoped that this might encourage people of color to enroll and to increase their comfort level with vaccines in general,” Dr. Dunkle said.
 

Building more representative clinical trials

For decades, research on some of the most groundbreaking vaccines and treatments have been based on the results of studies conducted with predominately White participants, despite the fact that a much more demographically varied general population would ultimately receive them. This has led to calls to include people of different races and ethnic backgrounds in trials.

Homogeneity in clinical trials is discouraged, but trials are not heavily regulated in this regard. In 1993, Congress passed the Revitalization Act, which requires that trials that are conducted by the National Institutes of Health include women and members of minority groups among their cohorts. However, the number or proportion of such participants is not specified.

Underrepresentation in clinical trials also reflects a general unwillingness by members of ethnic minorities to volunteer because of the deeply unsettling history of such trials in minority communities. Among some Black persons, it is not uncommon for names like Tuskegee, Henrietta Lacks, and J. Marion Simms to be mentioned when giving reasons for not participating.

“There is certainly some dark history in how minorities have been treated by our health care system, and it’s not surprising that there is some fear and distrust,” said Dr. Dunkle. “By recruiting people of color into clinical trials that are governed with strict standards, we can begin to change perceptions and attitudes.”

Vaccine hesitancy is not only rooted in the past. The current state of medical care also has some potential trial participants worried. Misinformation, inequity in health care access, and low health literacy contribute to the current fears of scientific development.
 

A trial designed to engender trust

Having information about the vaccine come from trusted voices in the community is a key means of overcoming hesitancy. Howard University President Wayne Frederick, MD, reached out to a pastor of a local Black church to have more participants enroll in the trial. One who answered the call to action was Stephanie Williams, an elementary school teacher in Montgomery County, Maryland. When she saw that her pastor was participating in the Novavax trial and when she considered the devastation she had seen from COVID-19, she was on board.

“We had about three sessions where he shared his experiences. He also shared some links to read about it more,” Ms. Williams said. “When I saw that he took it, that gave me a lot of confidence. Since I’m going be going into the classroom, I wanted to be sure that I was well protected.”

Transparency is key to gaining more participation, explained Dr. Maghoub. Webinar-based information sessions have proven particularly important in achieving this.

“We do a lot of explaining in very simple language to make sure everyone understands about the vaccine. The participants have time to ask questions during the webinar, and at any time [during the trial], if a participant feels that it is not right for them, they can stop. They have time to learn about the trial and give consent. People often think they are like guinea pigs in trials, but they are not. They must give consent.”

There are signs that the approach has been successful. Over a period of 4-5 weeks, the Howard site enrolled 150 participants, of whom 30% were Black and 20% were Latinx.

Novavax has been in business for more than 3 decades but hasn’t seen the booming success that their competitors have. The company has noted progress in developing vaccines against Middle East respiratory syndrome and severe acute respiratory syndrome. However, they missed the mark in clinical trials, failing twice in 3 years to develop a respiratory syncytial virus vaccine administered through maternal immunizations.

From being on the verge of closing, Novavax has since made a dramatic turnaround after former President Trump awarded the company $1.6 billion dollars in July 2020 as part of Operation Warp Speed. If trial results are promising, the Novavax vaccine could enter the market in a few months, representing not only a new therapeutic option but perhaps a new model for building inclusivity in clinical trials.

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

An estimated 20 million patients in the United States have a substance use disorder (SUD), with hundreds of millions of prescriptions for controlled substances written annually. Consequently, urine drug screening (UDS) has become widely utilized to evaluate and treat patients with an SUD or on chronic opioid or benzodiazepine therapy.¹

Used appropriately, UDS can be a valuable tool; there is ample evidence, however, that it has been misused, by some physicians, to stigmatize patients who use drugs of abuse,² profile patients racially,² profit from excessive testing,³ and inappropriately discontinue treatment.⁴

A patient-centered approach. We have extensive clinical experience in the use and interpretation of urine toxicology, serving as clinical leads in busy family medicine residency practices that care for patients with SUDs, and are often consulted regarding patients on chronic opioid or benzodiazepine therapy. We have encountered countless situations in which the correct interpretation of UDS is critical to providing care.

Over time, and after considerable trial and error, we developed the patient-centered approach to urine toxicology described in this article. We believe that the medical evidence strongly supports our approach to the appropriate use and interpretation of urine toxicology in clinical practice. Our review here is intended as a resource when you consider implementing a UDS protocol or are struggling with the management of unexpected results.

Urine toxicology for therapeutic drug monitoring

Prescribing a controlled substance carries inherent risks, including diversion, nonmedical use, and development of an SUD. Prescribed medications, particularly opioids and benzodiazepines, have been linked to a large increase in overdose deaths over the past decade.⁵ Several strategies have been investigated to mitigate risk (see “How frequently should a patient be tested?,” later in the article).

Clinical judgment—ie, when a physician orders a drug test upon suspecting that a patient is diverting a prescribed drug or has developed a substance use disorder—has been shown to be highly inaccurate.

Clinical judgment—ie, when a physician orders a drug test upon suspecting that a patient is diverting a prescribed drug or has developed an SUD—has been shown to be highly inaccurate. Implicit racial bias might affect the physician’s judgment, leading to changes in testing and test interpretation. For example, Black patients were found to be 10% more likely to have drug screening ordered while being treated with long-term opioid therapy and 2 to 3 times more likely to have their medication discontinued as a result of a marijuana- or cocaine-positive test.²

Other studies have shown that testing patients for “bad behavior,” so to speak—reporting a prescription lost or stolen, consuming more than the prescribed dosage, visiting the office without an appointment, having multiple drug intolerances and allergies, and making frequent telephone calls to the practice—is ineffective.⁶ Patients with these behaviors were slightly more likely to unexpectedly test positive, or negative, on their UDS; however, many patients without suspect behavior also were found to have abnormal toxicology results.⁶ Data do not support therapeutic drug monitoring only of patients selected on the basis of aberrant behavior.⁶

Continue to: Questions and concerns about urine drug screening

Why not just ask the patient? Studies have evaluated whether patient self-reporting of adherence is a feasible alternative to laboratory drug screening. Regrettably, patients have repeatedly been shown to underreport their use of both prescribed and illicit drugs.^7,8

That question leads to another: Why do patients lie to their physician? It is easy to assume malicious intent, but a variety of obstacles might dissuade a patient from being fully truthful with their physician:

• Monetary gain. A small, but real, percentage of medications are diverted by patients for this reason.⁹
• Addiction, pseudo-addiction due to tolerance, and self-medication for psychological symptoms are clinically treatable syndromes that can lead to underreporting of prescribed and nonprescribed drug and alcohol use.
• Shame. Addiction is a highly stigmatized disease, and patients might simply be ashamed to admit that they need treatment: 13% to 38% of patients receiving chronic opioid therapy in a pain management or primary care setting have a clinically diagnosable SUD.^10,11

Is consent needed to test or to share test results? Historically, UDS has been performed on patients without their consent or knowledge.¹² Patients give a urine specimen to their physician for a variety of reasons; it seems easy to “add on” UDS. Evidence is clear, however, that confronting a patient about an unexpected test result can make the clinical outcome worse—often resulting in irreparable damage to the patient–­physician relationship.^12,13 Unless the patient is experiencing a medical emergency, guidelines unanimously recommend obtaining consent prior to testing.^1,5,14

Annual screening is appropriate in low-risk patients; moderate-risk patients should be screened twice a year, and high-risk patients should be screened at least every 4 months.

Federal law requires written permission from the patient for the physician to disclose information about alcohol or substance use, unless the information is expressly needed to provide care during a medical emergency. Substance use is highly stigmatized, and patients might—legitimately—fear that sharing their history could undermine their care.^1,12,14

How frequently should a patient be tested? Experts recommend utilizing a risk-based strategy to determine the frequency of UDS.^1,5,15 Validated risk-assessment questionnaires include:

• Opioid Risk Tool for Opioid Use Disorder (ORT-OUD)^a
• Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients With Pain–Revised (SOAPP-R)^b
• Diagnosis, Intractability, Risk and Efficacy (DIRE)^c
• Addiction Behaviors Checklist (ABC).^d

Continue to: Each of these tools...

Each of these tools takes less than 5 minutes to administer and can be used by a primary care physician to objectively quantify the risk of prescribing; there is no evidence for the use of 1 of these screeners over the others.¹⁵ It is recommended that you choose a questionnaire that works for you and incorporate the risk assessment into prescribing any high-risk medication.^1,5,15

Once you have completed an initial risk assessment, the frequency of UDS can be based on ongoing assessment that incorporates baseline testing, patient self-reporting, toxicology results, behavioral monitoring, and state database monitoring through a prescription drug monitoring program. Annual screening is appropriate in low-risk patients; moderate-risk patients should be screened twice a year, and high-risk patients should be screened at least every 4 months (FIGURE).¹⁵

Many state and federal agencies, health systems, employers, and insurers mandate the frequency of testing through guidelines or legislation. These regulations often are inconsistent with the newest medical evidence.¹⁵ Consult local guidelines and review the medical evidence and consensus recommendations on UDS.

What are the cost considerations in providing UDS? Insurers have been billed as much as $4000 for definitive chromatography testing (described later).³ This has led to insurance fraud, when drug-testing practices with a financial interest routinely use large and expensive test panels, test too frequently, or unnecessarily send for confirmatory or quantitative analysis of all positive tests.^3,14 Often, insurers refuse to pay for unnecessary testing, leaving patients with significant indebtedness.^3,14 Take time to review the evidence and consensus recommendations on UDS to avoid waste, potential accusations of fraud, and financial burden on your patients.

Urine toxicology for addiction treatment

UDS protocols in addiction settings are often different from those in which a controlled substance is being prescribed.

Continue to: Routine and random testing

Routine and random testing. Two common practices when treating addiction are to perform UDS on all patients, at every visit, or to test randomly.¹ These practices can be problematic, however. Routine testing at every visit can make urine-tampering more likely and is often unnecessary for stable patients. Random testing can reduce the risk of urine-tampering, but it is often difficult for primary care clinics to institute such a protocol. Some clinics have patients provide a urine specimen at every visit and then only send tests to the lab based on randomization.¹

Contingency management—a behavioral intervention in which a patient is rewarded, or their performance is reinforced, when they display evidence of positive change—is the most effective strategy used in addiction medicine to determine the frequency of patient visits and UDS.^14,16 High-risk patients with self-reported active substance use or UDS results consistent with substance use, or both, are seen more often; as their addiction behavior diminishes, visits and UDS become less frequent. If addiction behavior increases, the patient is seen more often. Keep in mind that addiction behavior decreases over months of treatment, not immediately upon initiation.^14,17 For contingency management to be successful, patient-centered interviewing and UDS will need to be employed frequently as the patient works toward meaningful change.¹⁴

The technology of urine drug screening

Two general techniques are used for UDS: immunoassay and chromatography. Each plays an important role in clinical practice; physicians must therefore maintain a basic understanding of the mechanism of each technique and their comparable advantages and disadvantages. Such an understanding allows for (1) matching the appropriate technique to the individual clinical scenario and (2) correctly interpreting results.

Immunoassay technology is used for point-of-care and rapid laboratory UDS, using antibodies to detect the drug or drug metabolite of interest. Antibodies utilized in immunoassays are designed to selectively bind a specific antigen—ie, a unique chemical structure within the drug of choice. Once bound, the antigen–antibody complex can be exploited for detection through various methods.

Chromatography–mass ­spectrometry is considered the gold standard for UDS, yielding confirmatory results. This is a 2-step process: Chromatography separates components within a specimen; mass spectrometry then identifies those components. Most laboratories employ liquid, rather than gas, chromatography. The specificity of the liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry method is such that a false-positive result is, essentially, impossible.¹⁸

Continue to: How is the appropriate tests elected for urine drug screening?

Variables that influence your choice of the proper test method include the clinical question at hand; cost; the urgency of obtaining results; and the stakes in that decision (ie, will the results be used to simply change the dosage of a medication or, of greater consequence, to determine fitness for employment or inform criminal justice decisions?). Each method of UDS has advantages that can be utilized and disadvantages that must be considered to obtain an accurate and useful result.

Immunoassay provides rapid results, is relatively easy to perform, and is, comparatively, inexpensive.^1,14 The speed of results makes this method particularly useful in settings such as the emergency department, where rapid results are crucial. Ease of use makes immunoassay ideal for the office, where non-laboratory staff can be trained to properly administer the test.

A major disadvantage of immunoassay technology, however, is interference resulting in both false-positive and false-negative results, which is discussed in detail in the next section. Immunoassay should be considered a screening test that yields presumptive results.

Liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry is exquisitely specific and provides confirmatory test results—major advantages of the method. However, specificity comes at a price: significantly increased cost and longer wait time for results (typically days, if specimens are sent out to a laboratory). These barriers can make it impractical to employ this method in routine practice.

Interpretation of results: Not so fast

Interpreting UDS results is not as simple as noting a positive or negative result. Physicians must understand the concept of interference, so that results can be appropriately interpreted and confirmed. This is crucial when results influence clinical decisions; inappropriate action, taken on the basis of presumptive results, can have severe consequences for the patient–provider relationship and the treatment plan.^1,14

Continue to: Interference falls into 2 categories...

Interference falls into 2 categories: variables inherent in the testing process and patient variables.

Obtain consent prior to performing urine drug screening, even if you are already collecting a specimen for other testing.

Antibody cross-reactivity. A major disadvantage of immunoassay technology is interference that results in false-positive and false-negative results.^19,20 The source of this interference is antibody cross-­reactivity—the degree to which an antibody binds to structurally similar compounds. Antibody–­antigen interactions are incredibly complex; although assay antibodies are engineered to specifically detect a drug class of interest, reactivity with other, structurally similar compounds is unavoidable.

Nevertheless, cross-reactivity is a useful phenomenon that allows broad testing for multiple drugs within a class. For example, most point-of-care tests for benzodiazepines reliably detect diazepam and chlordiazepoxide. Likewise, opiate tests reliably detect natural opiates, such as morphine and codeine. Cross-reactivity is not limitless, however; most benzodiazepine immunoassays have poor reactivity to clonazepam and lorazepam, making it possible that a patient taking clonazepam tests negative for benzodiazepine on an immunoassay.^14,20 Similarly, standard opioid tests have only moderate cross-reactivity for semisynthetic opioids, such as hydrocodone and hydromorphone; poor cross-r­eactivity for oxycodone and oxymorphone; and essentially no cross-­reactivity for full synthetics, such as fentanyl and methadone.¹⁴

It is the responsibility of the ordering physician to understand cross-reactivity to various drugs within a testing class.

Routine urine drug screening at every visit can make urine tampering more likely and is often unnecessary for stable patients.

Whereas weak cross-reactivity to drugs within a class can be a source of false-negative results, cross-reactivity to drugs outside the class of interest is a source of false-positive results. An extensive review of drugs that cause false-positive immunoassay screening tests is outside the scope of this article; commonly prescribed medications implicated in false-positive results are listed in TABLE 1.¹⁹

Continue to: In general...

In general, amphetamine immunoassays produce frequent false-positive results, whereas cocaine and cannabinoid assays are more specific.^1,18 Common over-the-counter medications, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, decongestants, and antacids, can yield false-positive results, highlighting the need to obtain a comprehensive medication list from patients, including over-the-counter and herbal medications, before ordering UDS. Because of the complexity of cross-reactivity, it might not be possible to identify the source of a false-positive result.¹⁴

Patient variables. Intentional effort to skew results is another source of interference. The frequency of this effort varies by setting and the potential consequences of results—eg, employment testing or substance use treatment—and a range of attempts have been reported in the literature.^21,22 Common practices are dilution, adulteration, and substitution.^20,23

• Dilution lowers the concentration of the drug of interest below the detection limit of the assay by directly adding water to the urine specimen, drinking copious amounts of fluid, taking a diuretic, or a combination of these practices.
• Adulteration involves adding a substance to urine that interferes with the testing mechanism: for example, bleach, household cleaners, eye drops, and even commercially available products expressly marketed to interfere with UDS.²⁴
• Substitution involves providing urine or a urine-like substance for testing that did not originate from the patient.

Methods to minimize patient-related interference include observed collection and specimen validity testing for pH, creatinine, and adulterants (TABLE 2).^1,15 Efforts to detect patient interference must be balanced against concerns about privacy, personnel resources, and the cost of expanded testing.^14,19,20

Additional aspects inherent to the testing process, such as cutoff concentrations and detection windows, can lead to interference. Laboratories must set reporting cutoffs, and specimens with a drug concentration present but below the cutoff value are reported as a negative result. Detection windows are complex and are influenced by inherent properties of the drug, including metabolic pathway and route and frequency of use.¹ A given patient might well be using a substance, but if the specimen was obtained outside the detection window, a false-negative result might be reported (TABLE 3^1,23).

Managing test results

Appropriate management of UDS results is built on the foundation of understanding the testing mechanism, selecting the correct test, and properly interpreting results. Drug testing is, ultimately, a therapeutic tool used to monitor treatment, provide reinforcement, and explore substance use behavior; results of testing should be employed to achieve those objectives.^1,4,14 A negative or expected UDS result can be utilized as positive reinforcement for a patient who is adherent to the treatment plan—much the way objective weight loss in an obese patient can provide encouragement to continue lifestyle changes.

Continue to: Test results should be presented...

Test results should be presented in an objective, nonconfrontational, and compassionate manner, not with stigmatizing language, such as “clean” or “dirty.”^1,13,14 Using stigmatizing terms such as “substance abuser” instead of “person with a substance use disorder” has been shown, even among highly trained health care professionals, to have a negative effect on patient care.¹³

A given patient might well be using a substance, but if the specimen was obtained outside the detection window, a false-negative result might be reported.

Inevitably, you will encounter an unexpected result, and therefore must develop a rational, systematic, and compassionate management approach. “Unexpected result” is a broad term that includes results that conflict with

• a patient’s self-report
• your understanding of what the patient is taking (using)
• prescribed medications
• a patient’s typical substance use pattern.

When faced with an unexpected test result, first, ensure that the result in question is reliable. If a screening test yields an unanticipated finding—especially if it conflicts with the patient’s self-reporting—make every effort to seek confirmation if you are going to be making a significant clinical decision because of the result.^1,14

Second, use your understanding of interference to consider the result in a broader context. If confirmatory results are inconsistent with a patient’s self-report, discuss whether there has been a break in the ­ph­ysician–patient relationship and emphasize that recurrent use or failure to adhere to a treatment plan has clear consequences.^1,14 Modify the treatment plan to address the inconsistent finding by escalating care, adjusting medications, and connecting the patient to additional resources.

Third, keep in mind that a positive urine test is not diagnostic of an SUD. Occasional drug use is extremely common¹⁷ and should not categorically lead to a change in the treatment plan. Addiction is, fundamentally, a disease of disordered reward, motivation, and behavior that is defined by the consequences of substance use, not substance use per se,²⁵ and an SUD diagnosis is complex, based on clinical history, physical examination, and laboratory testing. Similarly, a negative UDS result does not rule out an SUD.^4,10

Continue to: Fourth, patient dismissal...

Fourth, patient dismissal is rarely an appropriate initial response to UDS results. Regrettably, some physicians misinterpret urine toxicology results and inappropriately discharge patients on that basis.

In general, amphetamine immunoassays produce frequent falsepositive results, whereas cocaine and cannabinoid assays are more specific.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guideline for prescribing opioids has increased utilization of UDS in primary care settings but does not provide the necessary education on proper use of the tool, which has resulted in a rise in misinterpretation and inappropriate discharge.^13,26

If recurrent aberrant behavior is detected (by history or urine toxicology), do not abruptly discontinue the patient’s medication(s). Inform the patient of your concern, taper medication, and refer the patient to addiction treatment. Abrupt discontinuation of an opioid or benzodiazepine can lead to significant harm.^1,14

CORRESPONDENCE
John Hayes, DO, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, 1121 E North Avenue, Milwaukee, WI, 53212; [email protected]

An estimated 20 million patients in the United States have a substance use disorder (SUD), with hundreds of millions of prescriptions for controlled substances written annually. Consequently, urine drug screening (UDS) has become widely utilized to evaluate and treat patients with an SUD or on chronic opioid or benzodiazepine therapy.¹

Used appropriately, UDS can be a valuable tool; there is ample evidence, however, that it has been misused, by some physicians, to stigmatize patients who use drugs of abuse,² profile patients racially,² profit from excessive testing,³ and inappropriately discontinue treatment.⁴

A patient-centered approach. We have extensive clinical experience in the use and interpretation of urine toxicology, serving as clinical leads in busy family medicine residency practices that care for patients with SUDs, and are often consulted regarding patients on chronic opioid or benzodiazepine therapy. We have encountered countless situations in which the correct interpretation of UDS is critical to providing care.

Over time, and after considerable trial and error, we developed the patient-centered approach to urine toxicology described in this article. We believe that the medical evidence strongly supports our approach to the appropriate use and interpretation of urine toxicology in clinical practice. Our review here is intended as a resource when you consider implementing a UDS protocol or are struggling with the management of unexpected results.

Urine toxicology for therapeutic drug monitoring

Prescribing a controlled substance carries inherent risks, including diversion, nonmedical use, and development of an SUD. Prescribed medications, particularly opioids and benzodiazepines, have been linked to a large increase in overdose deaths over the past decade.⁵ Several strategies have been investigated to mitigate risk (see “How frequently should a patient be tested?,” later in the article).

Clinical judgment—ie, when a physician orders a drug test upon suspecting that a patient is diverting a prescribed drug or has developed a substance use disorder—has been shown to be highly inaccurate.

Clinical judgment—ie, when a physician orders a drug test upon suspecting that a patient is diverting a prescribed drug or has developed an SUD—has been shown to be highly inaccurate. Implicit racial bias might affect the physician’s judgment, leading to changes in testing and test interpretation. For example, Black patients were found to be 10% more likely to have drug screening ordered while being treated with long-term opioid therapy and 2 to 3 times more likely to have their medication discontinued as a result of a marijuana- or cocaine-positive test.²

Other studies have shown that testing patients for “bad behavior,” so to speak—reporting a prescription lost or stolen, consuming more than the prescribed dosage, visiting the office without an appointment, having multiple drug intolerances and allergies, and making frequent telephone calls to the practice—is ineffective.⁶ Patients with these behaviors were slightly more likely to unexpectedly test positive, or negative, on their UDS; however, many patients without suspect behavior also were found to have abnormal toxicology results.⁶ Data do not support therapeutic drug monitoring only of patients selected on the basis of aberrant behavior.⁶

Continue to: Questions and concerns about urine drug screening

Why not just ask the patient? Studies have evaluated whether patient self-reporting of adherence is a feasible alternative to laboratory drug screening. Regrettably, patients have repeatedly been shown to underreport their use of both prescribed and illicit drugs.^7,8

That question leads to another: Why do patients lie to their physician? It is easy to assume malicious intent, but a variety of obstacles might dissuade a patient from being fully truthful with their physician:

• Monetary gain. A small, but real, percentage of medications are diverted by patients for this reason.⁹
• Addiction, pseudo-addiction due to tolerance, and self-medication for psychological symptoms are clinically treatable syndromes that can lead to underreporting of prescribed and nonprescribed drug and alcohol use.
• Shame. Addiction is a highly stigmatized disease, and patients might simply be ashamed to admit that they need treatment: 13% to 38% of patients receiving chronic opioid therapy in a pain management or primary care setting have a clinically diagnosable SUD.^10,11

Is consent needed to test or to share test results? Historically, UDS has been performed on patients without their consent or knowledge.¹² Patients give a urine specimen to their physician for a variety of reasons; it seems easy to “add on” UDS. Evidence is clear, however, that confronting a patient about an unexpected test result can make the clinical outcome worse—often resulting in irreparable damage to the patient–­physician relationship.^12,13 Unless the patient is experiencing a medical emergency, guidelines unanimously recommend obtaining consent prior to testing.^1,5,14

Annual screening is appropriate in low-risk patients; moderate-risk patients should be screened twice a year, and high-risk patients should be screened at least every 4 months.

Federal law requires written permission from the patient for the physician to disclose information about alcohol or substance use, unless the information is expressly needed to provide care during a medical emergency. Substance use is highly stigmatized, and patients might—legitimately—fear that sharing their history could undermine their care.^1,12,14

How frequently should a patient be tested? Experts recommend utilizing a risk-based strategy to determine the frequency of UDS.^1,5,15 Validated risk-assessment questionnaires include:

• Opioid Risk Tool for Opioid Use Disorder (ORT-OUD)^a
• Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients With Pain–Revised (SOAPP-R)^b
• Diagnosis, Intractability, Risk and Efficacy (DIRE)^c
• Addiction Behaviors Checklist (ABC).^d

Continue to: Each of these tools...

Each of these tools takes less than 5 minutes to administer and can be used by a primary care physician to objectively quantify the risk of prescribing; there is no evidence for the use of 1 of these screeners over the others.¹⁵ It is recommended that you choose a questionnaire that works for you and incorporate the risk assessment into prescribing any high-risk medication.^1,5,15

Once you have completed an initial risk assessment, the frequency of UDS can be based on ongoing assessment that incorporates baseline testing, patient self-reporting, toxicology results, behavioral monitoring, and state database monitoring through a prescription drug monitoring program. Annual screening is appropriate in low-risk patients; moderate-risk patients should be screened twice a year, and high-risk patients should be screened at least every 4 months (FIGURE).¹⁵

Many state and federal agencies, health systems, employers, and insurers mandate the frequency of testing through guidelines or legislation. These regulations often are inconsistent with the newest medical evidence.¹⁵ Consult local guidelines and review the medical evidence and consensus recommendations on UDS.

What are the cost considerations in providing UDS? Insurers have been billed as much as $4000 for definitive chromatography testing (described later).³ This has led to insurance fraud, when drug-testing practices with a financial interest routinely use large and expensive test panels, test too frequently, or unnecessarily send for confirmatory or quantitative analysis of all positive tests.^3,14 Often, insurers refuse to pay for unnecessary testing, leaving patients with significant indebtedness.^3,14 Take time to review the evidence and consensus recommendations on UDS to avoid waste, potential accusations of fraud, and financial burden on your patients.

Urine toxicology for addiction treatment

UDS protocols in addiction settings are often different from those in which a controlled substance is being prescribed.

Continue to: Routine and random testing

Routine and random testing. Two common practices when treating addiction are to perform UDS on all patients, at every visit, or to test randomly.¹ These practices can be problematic, however. Routine testing at every visit can make urine-tampering more likely and is often unnecessary for stable patients. Random testing can reduce the risk of urine-tampering, but it is often difficult for primary care clinics to institute such a protocol. Some clinics have patients provide a urine specimen at every visit and then only send tests to the lab based on randomization.¹

Contingency management—a behavioral intervention in which a patient is rewarded, or their performance is reinforced, when they display evidence of positive change—is the most effective strategy used in addiction medicine to determine the frequency of patient visits and UDS.^14,16 High-risk patients with self-reported active substance use or UDS results consistent with substance use, or both, are seen more often; as their addiction behavior diminishes, visits and UDS become less frequent. If addiction behavior increases, the patient is seen more often. Keep in mind that addiction behavior decreases over months of treatment, not immediately upon initiation.^14,17 For contingency management to be successful, patient-centered interviewing and UDS will need to be employed frequently as the patient works toward meaningful change.¹⁴

The technology of urine drug screening

Two general techniques are used for UDS: immunoassay and chromatography. Each plays an important role in clinical practice; physicians must therefore maintain a basic understanding of the mechanism of each technique and their comparable advantages and disadvantages. Such an understanding allows for (1) matching the appropriate technique to the individual clinical scenario and (2) correctly interpreting results.

Immunoassay technology is used for point-of-care and rapid laboratory UDS, using antibodies to detect the drug or drug metabolite of interest. Antibodies utilized in immunoassays are designed to selectively bind a specific antigen—ie, a unique chemical structure within the drug of choice. Once bound, the antigen–antibody complex can be exploited for detection through various methods.

Chromatography–mass ­spectrometry is considered the gold standard for UDS, yielding confirmatory results. This is a 2-step process: Chromatography separates components within a specimen; mass spectrometry then identifies those components. Most laboratories employ liquid, rather than gas, chromatography. The specificity of the liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry method is such that a false-positive result is, essentially, impossible.¹⁸

Continue to: How is the appropriate tests elected for urine drug screening?

Variables that influence your choice of the proper test method include the clinical question at hand; cost; the urgency of obtaining results; and the stakes in that decision (ie, will the results be used to simply change the dosage of a medication or, of greater consequence, to determine fitness for employment or inform criminal justice decisions?). Each method of UDS has advantages that can be utilized and disadvantages that must be considered to obtain an accurate and useful result.

Immunoassay provides rapid results, is relatively easy to perform, and is, comparatively, inexpensive.^1,14 The speed of results makes this method particularly useful in settings such as the emergency department, where rapid results are crucial. Ease of use makes immunoassay ideal for the office, where non-laboratory staff can be trained to properly administer the test.

A major disadvantage of immunoassay technology, however, is interference resulting in both false-positive and false-negative results, which is discussed in detail in the next section. Immunoassay should be considered a screening test that yields presumptive results.

Liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry is exquisitely specific and provides confirmatory test results—major advantages of the method. However, specificity comes at a price: significantly increased cost and longer wait time for results (typically days, if specimens are sent out to a laboratory). These barriers can make it impractical to employ this method in routine practice.

Interpretation of results: Not so fast

Interpreting UDS results is not as simple as noting a positive or negative result. Physicians must understand the concept of interference, so that results can be appropriately interpreted and confirmed. This is crucial when results influence clinical decisions; inappropriate action, taken on the basis of presumptive results, can have severe consequences for the patient–provider relationship and the treatment plan.^1,14

Continue to: Interference falls into 2 categories...

Interference falls into 2 categories: variables inherent in the testing process and patient variables.

Obtain consent prior to performing urine drug screening, even if you are already collecting a specimen for other testing.

Antibody cross-reactivity. A major disadvantage of immunoassay technology is interference that results in false-positive and false-negative results.^19,20 The source of this interference is antibody cross-­reactivity—the degree to which an antibody binds to structurally similar compounds. Antibody–­antigen interactions are incredibly complex; although assay antibodies are engineered to specifically detect a drug class of interest, reactivity with other, structurally similar compounds is unavoidable.

Nevertheless, cross-reactivity is a useful phenomenon that allows broad testing for multiple drugs within a class. For example, most point-of-care tests for benzodiazepines reliably detect diazepam and chlordiazepoxide. Likewise, opiate tests reliably detect natural opiates, such as morphine and codeine. Cross-reactivity is not limitless, however; most benzodiazepine immunoassays have poor reactivity to clonazepam and lorazepam, making it possible that a patient taking clonazepam tests negative for benzodiazepine on an immunoassay.^14,20 Similarly, standard opioid tests have only moderate cross-reactivity for semisynthetic opioids, such as hydrocodone and hydromorphone; poor cross-r­eactivity for oxycodone and oxymorphone; and essentially no cross-­reactivity for full synthetics, such as fentanyl and methadone.¹⁴

It is the responsibility of the ordering physician to understand cross-reactivity to various drugs within a testing class.

Routine urine drug screening at every visit can make urine tampering more likely and is often unnecessary for stable patients.

Whereas weak cross-reactivity to drugs within a class can be a source of false-negative results, cross-reactivity to drugs outside the class of interest is a source of false-positive results. An extensive review of drugs that cause false-positive immunoassay screening tests is outside the scope of this article; commonly prescribed medications implicated in false-positive results are listed in TABLE 1.¹⁹

Continue to: In general...

In general, amphetamine immunoassays produce frequent false-positive results, whereas cocaine and cannabinoid assays are more specific.^1,18 Common over-the-counter medications, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, decongestants, and antacids, can yield false-positive results, highlighting the need to obtain a comprehensive medication list from patients, including over-the-counter and herbal medications, before ordering UDS. Because of the complexity of cross-reactivity, it might not be possible to identify the source of a false-positive result.¹⁴

Patient variables. Intentional effort to skew results is another source of interference. The frequency of this effort varies by setting and the potential consequences of results—eg, employment testing or substance use treatment—and a range of attempts have been reported in the literature.^21,22 Common practices are dilution, adulteration, and substitution.^20,23

• Dilution lowers the concentration of the drug of interest below the detection limit of the assay by directly adding water to the urine specimen, drinking copious amounts of fluid, taking a diuretic, or a combination of these practices.
• Adulteration involves adding a substance to urine that interferes with the testing mechanism: for example, bleach, household cleaners, eye drops, and even commercially available products expressly marketed to interfere with UDS.²⁴
• Substitution involves providing urine or a urine-like substance for testing that did not originate from the patient.

Methods to minimize patient-related interference include observed collection and specimen validity testing for pH, creatinine, and adulterants (TABLE 2).^1,15 Efforts to detect patient interference must be balanced against concerns about privacy, personnel resources, and the cost of expanded testing.^14,19,20

Additional aspects inherent to the testing process, such as cutoff concentrations and detection windows, can lead to interference. Laboratories must set reporting cutoffs, and specimens with a drug concentration present but below the cutoff value are reported as a negative result. Detection windows are complex and are influenced by inherent properties of the drug, including metabolic pathway and route and frequency of use.¹ A given patient might well be using a substance, but if the specimen was obtained outside the detection window, a false-negative result might be reported (TABLE 3^1,23).

Managing test results

Appropriate management of UDS results is built on the foundation of understanding the testing mechanism, selecting the correct test, and properly interpreting results. Drug testing is, ultimately, a therapeutic tool used to monitor treatment, provide reinforcement, and explore substance use behavior; results of testing should be employed to achieve those objectives.^1,4,14 A negative or expected UDS result can be utilized as positive reinforcement for a patient who is adherent to the treatment plan—much the way objective weight loss in an obese patient can provide encouragement to continue lifestyle changes.

Continue to: Test results should be presented...

Test results should be presented in an objective, nonconfrontational, and compassionate manner, not with stigmatizing language, such as “clean” or “dirty.”^1,13,14 Using stigmatizing terms such as “substance abuser” instead of “person with a substance use disorder” has been shown, even among highly trained health care professionals, to have a negative effect on patient care.¹³

A given patient might well be using a substance, but if the specimen was obtained outside the detection window, a false-negative result might be reported.

Inevitably, you will encounter an unexpected result, and therefore must develop a rational, systematic, and compassionate management approach. “Unexpected result” is a broad term that includes results that conflict with

• a patient’s self-report
• your understanding of what the patient is taking (using)
• prescribed medications
• a patient’s typical substance use pattern.

When faced with an unexpected test result, first, ensure that the result in question is reliable. If a screening test yields an unanticipated finding—especially if it conflicts with the patient’s self-reporting—make every effort to seek confirmation if you are going to be making a significant clinical decision because of the result.^1,14

Second, use your understanding of interference to consider the result in a broader context. If confirmatory results are inconsistent with a patient’s self-report, discuss whether there has been a break in the ­ph­ysician–patient relationship and emphasize that recurrent use or failure to adhere to a treatment plan has clear consequences.^1,14 Modify the treatment plan to address the inconsistent finding by escalating care, adjusting medications, and connecting the patient to additional resources.

Third, keep in mind that a positive urine test is not diagnostic of an SUD. Occasional drug use is extremely common¹⁷ and should not categorically lead to a change in the treatment plan. Addiction is, fundamentally, a disease of disordered reward, motivation, and behavior that is defined by the consequences of substance use, not substance use per se,²⁵ and an SUD diagnosis is complex, based on clinical history, physical examination, and laboratory testing. Similarly, a negative UDS result does not rule out an SUD.^4,10

Continue to: Fourth, patient dismissal...

Fourth, patient dismissal is rarely an appropriate initial response to UDS results. Regrettably, some physicians misinterpret urine toxicology results and inappropriately discharge patients on that basis.

In general, amphetamine immunoassays produce frequent falsepositive results, whereas cocaine and cannabinoid assays are more specific.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guideline for prescribing opioids has increased utilization of UDS in primary care settings but does not provide the necessary education on proper use of the tool, which has resulted in a rise in misinterpretation and inappropriate discharge.^13,26

If recurrent aberrant behavior is detected (by history or urine toxicology), do not abruptly discontinue the patient’s medication(s). Inform the patient of your concern, taper medication, and refer the patient to addiction treatment. Abrupt discontinuation of an opioid or benzodiazepine can lead to significant harm.^1,14

CORRESPONDENCE
John Hayes, DO, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, 1121 E North Avenue, Milwaukee, WI, 53212; [email protected]

An estimated 20 million patients in the United States have a substance use disorder (SUD), with hundreds of millions of prescriptions for controlled substances written annually. Consequently, urine drug screening (UDS) has become widely utilized to evaluate and treat patients with an SUD or on chronic opioid or benzodiazepine therapy.¹

Used appropriately, UDS can be a valuable tool; there is ample evidence, however, that it has been misused, by some physicians, to stigmatize patients who use drugs of abuse,² profile patients racially,² profit from excessive testing,³ and inappropriately discontinue treatment.⁴

A patient-centered approach. We have extensive clinical experience in the use and interpretation of urine toxicology, serving as clinical leads in busy family medicine residency practices that care for patients with SUDs, and are often consulted regarding patients on chronic opioid or benzodiazepine therapy. We have encountered countless situations in which the correct interpretation of UDS is critical to providing care.

Over time, and after considerable trial and error, we developed the patient-centered approach to urine toxicology described in this article. We believe that the medical evidence strongly supports our approach to the appropriate use and interpretation of urine toxicology in clinical practice. Our review here is intended as a resource when you consider implementing a UDS protocol or are struggling with the management of unexpected results.

Urine toxicology for therapeutic drug monitoring

Prescribing a controlled substance carries inherent risks, including diversion, nonmedical use, and development of an SUD. Prescribed medications, particularly opioids and benzodiazepines, have been linked to a large increase in overdose deaths over the past decade.⁵ Several strategies have been investigated to mitigate risk (see “How frequently should a patient be tested?,” later in the article).

Clinical judgment—ie, when a physician orders a drug test upon suspecting that a patient is diverting a prescribed drug or has developed a substance use disorder—has been shown to be highly inaccurate.

Clinical judgment—ie, when a physician orders a drug test upon suspecting that a patient is diverting a prescribed drug or has developed an SUD—has been shown to be highly inaccurate. Implicit racial bias might affect the physician’s judgment, leading to changes in testing and test interpretation. For example, Black patients were found to be 10% more likely to have drug screening ordered while being treated with long-term opioid therapy and 2 to 3 times more likely to have their medication discontinued as a result of a marijuana- or cocaine-positive test.²

Other studies have shown that testing patients for “bad behavior,” so to speak—reporting a prescription lost or stolen, consuming more than the prescribed dosage, visiting the office without an appointment, having multiple drug intolerances and allergies, and making frequent telephone calls to the practice—is ineffective.⁶ Patients with these behaviors were slightly more likely to unexpectedly test positive, or negative, on their UDS; however, many patients without suspect behavior also were found to have abnormal toxicology results.⁶ Data do not support therapeutic drug monitoring only of patients selected on the basis of aberrant behavior.⁶

Continue to: Questions and concerns about urine drug screening

Why not just ask the patient? Studies have evaluated whether patient self-reporting of adherence is a feasible alternative to laboratory drug screening. Regrettably, patients have repeatedly been shown to underreport their use of both prescribed and illicit drugs.^7,8

That question leads to another: Why do patients lie to their physician? It is easy to assume malicious intent, but a variety of obstacles might dissuade a patient from being fully truthful with their physician:

• Monetary gain. A small, but real, percentage of medications are diverted by patients for this reason.⁹
• Addiction, pseudo-addiction due to tolerance, and self-medication for psychological symptoms are clinically treatable syndromes that can lead to underreporting of prescribed and nonprescribed drug and alcohol use.
• Shame. Addiction is a highly stigmatized disease, and patients might simply be ashamed to admit that they need treatment: 13% to 38% of patients receiving chronic opioid therapy in a pain management or primary care setting have a clinically diagnosable SUD.^10,11

Is consent needed to test or to share test results? Historically, UDS has been performed on patients without their consent or knowledge.¹² Patients give a urine specimen to their physician for a variety of reasons; it seems easy to “add on” UDS. Evidence is clear, however, that confronting a patient about an unexpected test result can make the clinical outcome worse—often resulting in irreparable damage to the patient–­physician relationship.^12,13 Unless the patient is experiencing a medical emergency, guidelines unanimously recommend obtaining consent prior to testing.^1,5,14

Annual screening is appropriate in low-risk patients; moderate-risk patients should be screened twice a year, and high-risk patients should be screened at least every 4 months.

Federal law requires written permission from the patient for the physician to disclose information about alcohol or substance use, unless the information is expressly needed to provide care during a medical emergency. Substance use is highly stigmatized, and patients might—legitimately—fear that sharing their history could undermine their care.^1,12,14

How frequently should a patient be tested? Experts recommend utilizing a risk-based strategy to determine the frequency of UDS.^1,5,15 Validated risk-assessment questionnaires include:

• Opioid Risk Tool for Opioid Use Disorder (ORT-OUD)^a
• Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients With Pain–Revised (SOAPP-R)^b
• Diagnosis, Intractability, Risk and Efficacy (DIRE)^c
• Addiction Behaviors Checklist (ABC).^d

Continue to: Each of these tools...

Each of these tools takes less than 5 minutes to administer and can be used by a primary care physician to objectively quantify the risk of prescribing; there is no evidence for the use of 1 of these screeners over the others.¹⁵ It is recommended that you choose a questionnaire that works for you and incorporate the risk assessment into prescribing any high-risk medication.^1,5,15

Once you have completed an initial risk assessment, the frequency of UDS can be based on ongoing assessment that incorporates baseline testing, patient self-reporting, toxicology results, behavioral monitoring, and state database monitoring through a prescription drug monitoring program. Annual screening is appropriate in low-risk patients; moderate-risk patients should be screened twice a year, and high-risk patients should be screened at least every 4 months (FIGURE).¹⁵

Many state and federal agencies, health systems, employers, and insurers mandate the frequency of testing through guidelines or legislation. These regulations often are inconsistent with the newest medical evidence.¹⁵ Consult local guidelines and review the medical evidence and consensus recommendations on UDS.

What are the cost considerations in providing UDS? Insurers have been billed as much as $4000 for definitive chromatography testing (described later).³ This has led to insurance fraud, when drug-testing practices with a financial interest routinely use large and expensive test panels, test too frequently, or unnecessarily send for confirmatory or quantitative analysis of all positive tests.^3,14 Often, insurers refuse to pay for unnecessary testing, leaving patients with significant indebtedness.^3,14 Take time to review the evidence and consensus recommendations on UDS to avoid waste, potential accusations of fraud, and financial burden on your patients.

Urine toxicology for addiction treatment

UDS protocols in addiction settings are often different from those in which a controlled substance is being prescribed.

Continue to: Routine and random testing

Routine and random testing. Two common practices when treating addiction are to perform UDS on all patients, at every visit, or to test randomly.¹ These practices can be problematic, however. Routine testing at every visit can make urine-tampering more likely and is often unnecessary for stable patients. Random testing can reduce the risk of urine-tampering, but it is often difficult for primary care clinics to institute such a protocol. Some clinics have patients provide a urine specimen at every visit and then only send tests to the lab based on randomization.¹

Contingency management—a behavioral intervention in which a patient is rewarded, or their performance is reinforced, when they display evidence of positive change—is the most effective strategy used in addiction medicine to determine the frequency of patient visits and UDS.^14,16 High-risk patients with self-reported active substance use or UDS results consistent with substance use, or both, are seen more often; as their addiction behavior diminishes, visits and UDS become less frequent. If addiction behavior increases, the patient is seen more often. Keep in mind that addiction behavior decreases over months of treatment, not immediately upon initiation.^14,17 For contingency management to be successful, patient-centered interviewing and UDS will need to be employed frequently as the patient works toward meaningful change.¹⁴

The technology of urine drug screening

Two general techniques are used for UDS: immunoassay and chromatography. Each plays an important role in clinical practice; physicians must therefore maintain a basic understanding of the mechanism of each technique and their comparable advantages and disadvantages. Such an understanding allows for (1) matching the appropriate technique to the individual clinical scenario and (2) correctly interpreting results.

Immunoassay technology is used for point-of-care and rapid laboratory UDS, using antibodies to detect the drug or drug metabolite of interest. Antibodies utilized in immunoassays are designed to selectively bind a specific antigen—ie, a unique chemical structure within the drug of choice. Once bound, the antigen–antibody complex can be exploited for detection through various methods.

Chromatography–mass ­spectrometry is considered the gold standard for UDS, yielding confirmatory results. This is a 2-step process: Chromatography separates components within a specimen; mass spectrometry then identifies those components. Most laboratories employ liquid, rather than gas, chromatography. The specificity of the liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry method is such that a false-positive result is, essentially, impossible.¹⁸

Continue to: How is the appropriate tests elected for urine drug screening?

Variables that influence your choice of the proper test method include the clinical question at hand; cost; the urgency of obtaining results; and the stakes in that decision (ie, will the results be used to simply change the dosage of a medication or, of greater consequence, to determine fitness for employment or inform criminal justice decisions?). Each method of UDS has advantages that can be utilized and disadvantages that must be considered to obtain an accurate and useful result.

Immunoassay provides rapid results, is relatively easy to perform, and is, comparatively, inexpensive.^1,14 The speed of results makes this method particularly useful in settings such as the emergency department, where rapid results are crucial. Ease of use makes immunoassay ideal for the office, where non-laboratory staff can be trained to properly administer the test.

A major disadvantage of immunoassay technology, however, is interference resulting in both false-positive and false-negative results, which is discussed in detail in the next section. Immunoassay should be considered a screening test that yields presumptive results.

Liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry is exquisitely specific and provides confirmatory test results—major advantages of the method. However, specificity comes at a price: significantly increased cost and longer wait time for results (typically days, if specimens are sent out to a laboratory). These barriers can make it impractical to employ this method in routine practice.

Interpretation of results: Not so fast

Interpreting UDS results is not as simple as noting a positive or negative result. Physicians must understand the concept of interference, so that results can be appropriately interpreted and confirmed. This is crucial when results influence clinical decisions; inappropriate action, taken on the basis of presumptive results, can have severe consequences for the patient–provider relationship and the treatment plan.^1,14

Continue to: Interference falls into 2 categories...

Interference falls into 2 categories: variables inherent in the testing process and patient variables.

Obtain consent prior to performing urine drug screening, even if you are already collecting a specimen for other testing.

Antibody cross-reactivity. A major disadvantage of immunoassay technology is interference that results in false-positive and false-negative results.^19,20 The source of this interference is antibody cross-­reactivity—the degree to which an antibody binds to structurally similar compounds. Antibody–­antigen interactions are incredibly complex; although assay antibodies are engineered to specifically detect a drug class of interest, reactivity with other, structurally similar compounds is unavoidable.

Nevertheless, cross-reactivity is a useful phenomenon that allows broad testing for multiple drugs within a class. For example, most point-of-care tests for benzodiazepines reliably detect diazepam and chlordiazepoxide. Likewise, opiate tests reliably detect natural opiates, such as morphine and codeine. Cross-reactivity is not limitless, however; most benzodiazepine immunoassays have poor reactivity to clonazepam and lorazepam, making it possible that a patient taking clonazepam tests negative for benzodiazepine on an immunoassay.^14,20 Similarly, standard opioid tests have only moderate cross-reactivity for semisynthetic opioids, such as hydrocodone and hydromorphone; poor cross-r­eactivity for oxycodone and oxymorphone; and essentially no cross-­reactivity for full synthetics, such as fentanyl and methadone.¹⁴

It is the responsibility of the ordering physician to understand cross-reactivity to various drugs within a testing class.

Routine urine drug screening at every visit can make urine tampering more likely and is often unnecessary for stable patients.

Whereas weak cross-reactivity to drugs within a class can be a source of false-negative results, cross-reactivity to drugs outside the class of interest is a source of false-positive results. An extensive review of drugs that cause false-positive immunoassay screening tests is outside the scope of this article; commonly prescribed medications implicated in false-positive results are listed in TABLE 1.¹⁹

Continue to: In general...

In general, amphetamine immunoassays produce frequent false-positive results, whereas cocaine and cannabinoid assays are more specific.^1,18 Common over-the-counter medications, including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, decongestants, and antacids, can yield false-positive results, highlighting the need to obtain a comprehensive medication list from patients, including over-the-counter and herbal medications, before ordering UDS. Because of the complexity of cross-reactivity, it might not be possible to identify the source of a false-positive result.¹⁴

Patient variables. Intentional effort to skew results is another source of interference. The frequency of this effort varies by setting and the potential consequences of results—eg, employment testing or substance use treatment—and a range of attempts have been reported in the literature.^21,22 Common practices are dilution, adulteration, and substitution.^20,23

• Dilution lowers the concentration of the drug of interest below the detection limit of the assay by directly adding water to the urine specimen, drinking copious amounts of fluid, taking a diuretic, or a combination of these practices.
• Adulteration involves adding a substance to urine that interferes with the testing mechanism: for example, bleach, household cleaners, eye drops, and even commercially available products expressly marketed to interfere with UDS.²⁴
• Substitution involves providing urine or a urine-like substance for testing that did not originate from the patient.

Methods to minimize patient-related interference include observed collection and specimen validity testing for pH, creatinine, and adulterants (TABLE 2).^1,15 Efforts to detect patient interference must be balanced against concerns about privacy, personnel resources, and the cost of expanded testing.^14,19,20

Additional aspects inherent to the testing process, such as cutoff concentrations and detection windows, can lead to interference. Laboratories must set reporting cutoffs, and specimens with a drug concentration present but below the cutoff value are reported as a negative result. Detection windows are complex and are influenced by inherent properties of the drug, including metabolic pathway and route and frequency of use.¹ A given patient might well be using a substance, but if the specimen was obtained outside the detection window, a false-negative result might be reported (TABLE 3^1,23).

Managing test results

Appropriate management of UDS results is built on the foundation of understanding the testing mechanism, selecting the correct test, and properly interpreting results. Drug testing is, ultimately, a therapeutic tool used to monitor treatment, provide reinforcement, and explore substance use behavior; results of testing should be employed to achieve those objectives.^1,4,14 A negative or expected UDS result can be utilized as positive reinforcement for a patient who is adherent to the treatment plan—much the way objective weight loss in an obese patient can provide encouragement to continue lifestyle changes.

Continue to: Test results should be presented...

Test results should be presented in an objective, nonconfrontational, and compassionate manner, not with stigmatizing language, such as “clean” or “dirty.”^1,13,14 Using stigmatizing terms such as “substance abuser” instead of “person with a substance use disorder” has been shown, even among highly trained health care professionals, to have a negative effect on patient care.¹³

A given patient might well be using a substance, but if the specimen was obtained outside the detection window, a false-negative result might be reported.

Inevitably, you will encounter an unexpected result, and therefore must develop a rational, systematic, and compassionate management approach. “Unexpected result” is a broad term that includes results that conflict with

• a patient’s self-report
• your understanding of what the patient is taking (using)
• prescribed medications
• a patient’s typical substance use pattern.

When faced with an unexpected test result, first, ensure that the result in question is reliable. If a screening test yields an unanticipated finding—especially if it conflicts with the patient’s self-reporting—make every effort to seek confirmation if you are going to be making a significant clinical decision because of the result.^1,14

Second, use your understanding of interference to consider the result in a broader context. If confirmatory results are inconsistent with a patient’s self-report, discuss whether there has been a break in the ­ph­ysician–patient relationship and emphasize that recurrent use or failure to adhere to a treatment plan has clear consequences.^1,14 Modify the treatment plan to address the inconsistent finding by escalating care, adjusting medications, and connecting the patient to additional resources.

Third, keep in mind that a positive urine test is not diagnostic of an SUD. Occasional drug use is extremely common¹⁷ and should not categorically lead to a change in the treatment plan. Addiction is, fundamentally, a disease of disordered reward, motivation, and behavior that is defined by the consequences of substance use, not substance use per se,²⁵ and an SUD diagnosis is complex, based on clinical history, physical examination, and laboratory testing. Similarly, a negative UDS result does not rule out an SUD.^4,10

Continue to: Fourth, patient dismissal...

Fourth, patient dismissal is rarely an appropriate initial response to UDS results. Regrettably, some physicians misinterpret urine toxicology results and inappropriately discharge patients on that basis.

In general, amphetamine immunoassays produce frequent falsepositive results, whereas cocaine and cannabinoid assays are more specific.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guideline for prescribing opioids has increased utilization of UDS in primary care settings but does not provide the necessary education on proper use of the tool, which has resulted in a rise in misinterpretation and inappropriate discharge.^13,26

If recurrent aberrant behavior is detected (by history or urine toxicology), do not abruptly discontinue the patient’s medication(s). Inform the patient of your concern, taper medication, and refer the patient to addiction treatment. Abrupt discontinuation of an opioid or benzodiazepine can lead to significant harm.^1,14

CORRESPONDENCE
John Hayes, DO, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, 1121 E North Avenue, Milwaukee, WI, 53212; [email protected]