Diversity in Medicine

Disorders of hyperpigmentation—melasma, postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, lichen planus pigmentosus, erythema dyschromicum perstans, and pigmented contact dermatitis, among others—are common and challenging to treat. Although they can affect individuals of all skin types, they most commonly are seen in skin of color; in fact, dyspigmentation is one of the most common chief concerns for which individuals of color see a dermatologist.^1,2

For many years, hydroquinone (HQ) was one of the main options available for use as a lightening agent. Although effective, it has the risk of causing irritant dermatitis, potentially leading to further dyspigmentation, in addition to the risk of ochronosis with long-term use. It remains an important and useful treatment for pigmentary disorders, but there are numerous other lightening agents that also can be considered in the treatment of disorders of hyperpigmentation.

Herein, we provide recommendations for traditional and newer non-HQ lightening agents that can be considered when treating disorders of hyperpigmentation.

Traditional Non-HQ Lightening Agents

Retinoids—Retinoids are topical vitamin A derivatives that have been used safely and effectively for decades in the treatment of pigmentary disorders. Retinoids have multiple mechanisms of action in improving pigmentation. In addition to impeding tyrosinase induction, they inhibit pigment transfer to keratinocytes and lead to accelerated pigment loss due to epidermal shedding.³ Over-the-counter formulations include retinol, retinaldehyde, and adapalene. Prescription formulations include tretinoin and tazarotene in different strengths and vehicle formulations.⁴

Glycolic Acid—Glycolic acid is derived from sugarcane and is considered an α-hydroxy acid that leads to rapid desquamation of pigmented keratinocytes.⁵ Glycolic acid can not only be used in chemical peels but also in topical creams. It is the most common α-hydroxy acid peel and is sometimes paired with HQ and other topical lightening agents for increased penetration. Glycolic acid peels are available in concentrations of 20% to 70% and can be used at various depths. When used incorrectly, it can cause redness, burning, and even skin discoloration; however, when used at the proper concentrations and depth according to Fitzpatrick skin type, there typically are no notable adverse effects, and clinical results are favorable.

Kojic Acid—Kojic acid is a natural metabolite derived from fungi and is widely used in Asian countries. It works by inhibiting the catecholase activity of tyrosinase⁶ and typically is available in concentrations of 1% to 4%. A study suggested that a concentration of 1% or less typically is safe to use for prolonged periods without adverse effects. Although not more effective than HQ as a monotherapy, kojic acid has been shown to haveimproved efficacy when used in combination with other lightening agents.⁷

Azelaic Acid—Azelaic acid works by inhibiting tyrosinase, mitochondrial oxidoreductase activation, and DNA synthesis. It preferentially targets heavily pigmented melanocytes and possesses anti-inflammatory and antibacterial properties.⁸ A 20% concentration of azelaic acid was compared to HQ 4% for the treatment of melasma, and results revealed that the liposomal form of azelaic acid was considerably more tolerable than HQ 4% and also more effective.⁹

Licorice Extracts—Licorice extracts have been safely used in several cosmeceutical skin lightening products.¹⁰ The main active compounds in licorice root are glabridin and liquiritin, which work to disperse melanin. These compounds often are used topically at concentrations of 10% to 40%. A study by Amer and Metwalli¹¹ found that topical liquiritin produced a reduction of pigmentary intensity, with 80% of patients showing an excellent response, which was described as no difference between the previously pigmented area and the normal skin surrounding it.

Aloesin—Aloesin is a low-molecular-weight glycoprotein found in aloe vera plants. Its mechanism of action includes competitive inhibition of the dihydroxyphenylalanine oxidation site, resulting in the inhibition of tyrosinase.¹² It often is combined with arbutin for an enhanced lightening effect.

Niacinamide—Niacinamide is a form of vitamin B₃ that works by suppressing the transfer of melanosomes to keratinocytes.¹³ In addition to its skin lightening effects, it also is photoprotective and antimicrobial, and its tolerability and safety have led to its inclusion in many cosmeceutical and prescription products.¹⁴

Ascorbic Acid—Ascorbic acid affects the monopherase activity of tyrosinase, thus reducing the synthesis of melanin. It also serves as an antioxidant in the skin by preventing the production of free radicals that can induce melanogenesis.¹⁵ Although it tends to be well tolerated with a low adverse effect profile, its relative instability and varying permeability can present a challenge. It is less effective as a monotherapy, so it often is combined with other lightening ingredients for greater efficacy.

Corticosteroids—Topical corticosteroids are anti-inflammatory and impact melanogenesis, though the mechanism of action of the latter has not been fully elucidated.^16,17 Low- to mid-potency topical steroids often are used in conjunction with skin lightening products to diminish irritation and decrease inflammation.¹⁸ However, prolonged use of corticosteroids can lead to cutaneous adverse effects such as striae, hypopigmentation, and acne, as well as systemic side effects if there is sufficient absorption over time.

Soybean Extracts—Soybean extracts contain serine protease inhibitors that reduce the transfer of melanosomes into keratinocytes by inhibiting the PAR-2 (protease-activated receptor 2) pathway.^19,20

Ellagic Acid—Ellagic acid is found in common plants such as eucalyptus and strawberry as well as green tea.²¹ It works as an antioxidant and decreases melanogenesis through inhibition of tyrosinase activity.

Paper Mulberry—Paper mulberry extract comes from the roots of the Broussonetia papyrifera tree and functions by inhibiting tyrosinase activity. It is widely used in South Africa and Europe.²²

Resveratrol—Resveratrol is an ingredient extracted from Morus alba L and functions as an antimelanogentic agent by directly inhibiting tyrosinase as well as transcriptional and posttranscriptional processing of tyrosinase.²³ It also holds antiproliferative, anti-inflammatory, and antioxidant properties and has widely been used for antiaging and skin lightening purposes.²⁴

Newer Non-HQ Lightening Agents

Silymarin—Silymarin (also known as milk thistle [Silybum marianum]), is a polyphenolic flavonoid that possesses anticarcinogenic, antioxidant, and anti-inflammatory properties. It prevents melanin production in a dose-dependent manner by inhibiting levodopa (L-dopa) oxidation activity of tyrosinase and also reduces the expression of tyrosinase protein.²⁵ In combination with vitamins C and E and hexylresorcinol, silymarin has been found to reduce the effects of photodamage, brighten skin, improve evenness and lines, as well as improve global facial appearance.²⁶

Malassezin—Malassezin is an indole produced by Malessezia furfur yeast and has recently been investigated for melanogenesis suppression. Grimes et al²⁷ assessed the efficacy of topical malassezin in 7 patients with facial hyperpigmentation applied twice daily for 14 weeks. Punch biopsies were taken at weeks 0, 8, 14, and 22. Biopsies from weeks 8 and 14 demonstrated reduced epidermal melanin compared to baseline in all participants; however, at 22 weeks, biopsies showed no difference in melanin content compared to baseline, indicating a temporary process induced by the malassezin.²⁷ More clinical studies are needed to investigate this further.

N-acetyl-glucosamine—N-acetyl-glucosamine is an aminosaccharide that inhibits the glycosylation of tyrosinase as well as its function in melanogenesis.²⁸ It is synthesized and included in topical products for wound healing, rhytides, moisturization, and pigmentation disorders.

Topical Tranexamic Acid—Tranexamic acid traditionally has been used orally for the treatment of menorrhagia but also has been found to be beneficial as a therapy for hyperpigmentation and erythema. Tranexamic acid interferes with plasmin activity, thus indirectly inhibiting melanogenesis while also inhibiting angiogenesis by targeting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors.²⁹ It also leads to an increase in the levels of β-endorphin and μ-opioid receptors as well as the expression of estrogen receptor β on the surface of mast cells.³⁰ Its oral benefit led to the development of topical formulations, typically in 2% to 5% concentrations. It has proven particularly beneficial in the treatment of melasma due to its effects on improving pigmentation, erythema, and skin barrier function.³¹ Topical tranexamic acid has a relatively high safety profile, with minor side effects such as transient skin irritation and erythema being reported.³²

Cysteamine—Cysteamine inhibits tyrosinase, peroxidase, and chelating copper ions necessary for melanogenesis. It has proven to be effective in treating melasma and chronic severe postinflammatory hyperpigmentation when used in a 5% cream formulation.^33,34 Lima et al³⁵ were the first to compare the effects of topical cysteamine to HQ in the treatment of facial melasma. They found that the mean reduction in modified Melasma Area and Severity Index score was 24% for cysteamine and 41% for HQ after 60 days. There were no severe adverse effects with either treatment group.³⁵

Final Thoughts

Hydroquinone remains the gold standard for treatment of hyperpigmentation; however, its side-effect profile and risk of ochronosis with long-term use has ushered in various other safe and effective skin lightening agents that can be used as monotherapies or in combination with other lightening agents. Many of these products also can be used effectively with procedural treatments such as chemical peels, lasers, and microneedling for enhanced absorption and efficacy. As newer agents are developed, additional well-designed studies will be needed to determine their safety and efficacy in different skin types as well as their role in the treatment of pigmentary disorders.

Disorders of hyperpigmentation—melasma, postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, lichen planus pigmentosus, erythema dyschromicum perstans, and pigmented contact dermatitis, among others—are common and challenging to treat. Although they can affect individuals of all skin types, they most commonly are seen in skin of color; in fact, dyspigmentation is one of the most common chief concerns for which individuals of color see a dermatologist.^1,2

For many years, hydroquinone (HQ) was one of the main options available for use as a lightening agent. Although effective, it has the risk of causing irritant dermatitis, potentially leading to further dyspigmentation, in addition to the risk of ochronosis with long-term use. It remains an important and useful treatment for pigmentary disorders, but there are numerous other lightening agents that also can be considered in the treatment of disorders of hyperpigmentation.

Herein, we provide recommendations for traditional and newer non-HQ lightening agents that can be considered when treating disorders of hyperpigmentation.

Traditional Non-HQ Lightening Agents

Retinoids—Retinoids are topical vitamin A derivatives that have been used safely and effectively for decades in the treatment of pigmentary disorders. Retinoids have multiple mechanisms of action in improving pigmentation. In addition to impeding tyrosinase induction, they inhibit pigment transfer to keratinocytes and lead to accelerated pigment loss due to epidermal shedding.³ Over-the-counter formulations include retinol, retinaldehyde, and adapalene. Prescription formulations include tretinoin and tazarotene in different strengths and vehicle formulations.⁴

Glycolic Acid—Glycolic acid is derived from sugarcane and is considered an α-hydroxy acid that leads to rapid desquamation of pigmented keratinocytes.⁵ Glycolic acid can not only be used in chemical peels but also in topical creams. It is the most common α-hydroxy acid peel and is sometimes paired with HQ and other topical lightening agents for increased penetration. Glycolic acid peels are available in concentrations of 20% to 70% and can be used at various depths. When used incorrectly, it can cause redness, burning, and even skin discoloration; however, when used at the proper concentrations and depth according to Fitzpatrick skin type, there typically are no notable adverse effects, and clinical results are favorable.

Kojic Acid—Kojic acid is a natural metabolite derived from fungi and is widely used in Asian countries. It works by inhibiting the catecholase activity of tyrosinase⁶ and typically is available in concentrations of 1% to 4%. A study suggested that a concentration of 1% or less typically is safe to use for prolonged periods without adverse effects. Although not more effective than HQ as a monotherapy, kojic acid has been shown to haveimproved efficacy when used in combination with other lightening agents.⁷

Azelaic Acid—Azelaic acid works by inhibiting tyrosinase, mitochondrial oxidoreductase activation, and DNA synthesis. It preferentially targets heavily pigmented melanocytes and possesses anti-inflammatory and antibacterial properties.⁸ A 20% concentration of azelaic acid was compared to HQ 4% for the treatment of melasma, and results revealed that the liposomal form of azelaic acid was considerably more tolerable than HQ 4% and also more effective.⁹

Licorice Extracts—Licorice extracts have been safely used in several cosmeceutical skin lightening products.¹⁰ The main active compounds in licorice root are glabridin and liquiritin, which work to disperse melanin. These compounds often are used topically at concentrations of 10% to 40%. A study by Amer and Metwalli¹¹ found that topical liquiritin produced a reduction of pigmentary intensity, with 80% of patients showing an excellent response, which was described as no difference between the previously pigmented area and the normal skin surrounding it.

Aloesin—Aloesin is a low-molecular-weight glycoprotein found in aloe vera plants. Its mechanism of action includes competitive inhibition of the dihydroxyphenylalanine oxidation site, resulting in the inhibition of tyrosinase.¹² It often is combined with arbutin for an enhanced lightening effect.

Niacinamide—Niacinamide is a form of vitamin B₃ that works by suppressing the transfer of melanosomes to keratinocytes.¹³ In addition to its skin lightening effects, it also is photoprotective and antimicrobial, and its tolerability and safety have led to its inclusion in many cosmeceutical and prescription products.¹⁴

Ascorbic Acid—Ascorbic acid affects the monopherase activity of tyrosinase, thus reducing the synthesis of melanin. It also serves as an antioxidant in the skin by preventing the production of free radicals that can induce melanogenesis.¹⁵ Although it tends to be well tolerated with a low adverse effect profile, its relative instability and varying permeability can present a challenge. It is less effective as a monotherapy, so it often is combined with other lightening ingredients for greater efficacy.

Corticosteroids—Topical corticosteroids are anti-inflammatory and impact melanogenesis, though the mechanism of action of the latter has not been fully elucidated.^16,17 Low- to mid-potency topical steroids often are used in conjunction with skin lightening products to diminish irritation and decrease inflammation.¹⁸ However, prolonged use of corticosteroids can lead to cutaneous adverse effects such as striae, hypopigmentation, and acne, as well as systemic side effects if there is sufficient absorption over time.

Soybean Extracts—Soybean extracts contain serine protease inhibitors that reduce the transfer of melanosomes into keratinocytes by inhibiting the PAR-2 (protease-activated receptor 2) pathway.^19,20

Ellagic Acid—Ellagic acid is found in common plants such as eucalyptus and strawberry as well as green tea.²¹ It works as an antioxidant and decreases melanogenesis through inhibition of tyrosinase activity.

Paper Mulberry—Paper mulberry extract comes from the roots of the Broussonetia papyrifera tree and functions by inhibiting tyrosinase activity. It is widely used in South Africa and Europe.²²

Resveratrol—Resveratrol is an ingredient extracted from Morus alba L and functions as an antimelanogentic agent by directly inhibiting tyrosinase as well as transcriptional and posttranscriptional processing of tyrosinase.²³ It also holds antiproliferative, anti-inflammatory, and antioxidant properties and has widely been used for antiaging and skin lightening purposes.²⁴

Newer Non-HQ Lightening Agents

Silymarin—Silymarin (also known as milk thistle [Silybum marianum]), is a polyphenolic flavonoid that possesses anticarcinogenic, antioxidant, and anti-inflammatory properties. It prevents melanin production in a dose-dependent manner by inhibiting levodopa (L-dopa) oxidation activity of tyrosinase and also reduces the expression of tyrosinase protein.²⁵ In combination with vitamins C and E and hexylresorcinol, silymarin has been found to reduce the effects of photodamage, brighten skin, improve evenness and lines, as well as improve global facial appearance.²⁶

Malassezin—Malassezin is an indole produced by Malessezia furfur yeast and has recently been investigated for melanogenesis suppression. Grimes et al²⁷ assessed the efficacy of topical malassezin in 7 patients with facial hyperpigmentation applied twice daily for 14 weeks. Punch biopsies were taken at weeks 0, 8, 14, and 22. Biopsies from weeks 8 and 14 demonstrated reduced epidermal melanin compared to baseline in all participants; however, at 22 weeks, biopsies showed no difference in melanin content compared to baseline, indicating a temporary process induced by the malassezin.²⁷ More clinical studies are needed to investigate this further.

N-acetyl-glucosamine—N-acetyl-glucosamine is an aminosaccharide that inhibits the glycosylation of tyrosinase as well as its function in melanogenesis.²⁸ It is synthesized and included in topical products for wound healing, rhytides, moisturization, and pigmentation disorders.

Topical Tranexamic Acid—Tranexamic acid traditionally has been used orally for the treatment of menorrhagia but also has been found to be beneficial as a therapy for hyperpigmentation and erythema. Tranexamic acid interferes with plasmin activity, thus indirectly inhibiting melanogenesis while also inhibiting angiogenesis by targeting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors.²⁹ It also leads to an increase in the levels of β-endorphin and μ-opioid receptors as well as the expression of estrogen receptor β on the surface of mast cells.³⁰ Its oral benefit led to the development of topical formulations, typically in 2% to 5% concentrations. It has proven particularly beneficial in the treatment of melasma due to its effects on improving pigmentation, erythema, and skin barrier function.³¹ Topical tranexamic acid has a relatively high safety profile, with minor side effects such as transient skin irritation and erythema being reported.³²

Cysteamine—Cysteamine inhibits tyrosinase, peroxidase, and chelating copper ions necessary for melanogenesis. It has proven to be effective in treating melasma and chronic severe postinflammatory hyperpigmentation when used in a 5% cream formulation.^33,34 Lima et al³⁵ were the first to compare the effects of topical cysteamine to HQ in the treatment of facial melasma. They found that the mean reduction in modified Melasma Area and Severity Index score was 24% for cysteamine and 41% for HQ after 60 days. There were no severe adverse effects with either treatment group.³⁵

Final Thoughts

Hydroquinone remains the gold standard for treatment of hyperpigmentation; however, its side-effect profile and risk of ochronosis with long-term use has ushered in various other safe and effective skin lightening agents that can be used as monotherapies or in combination with other lightening agents. Many of these products also can be used effectively with procedural treatments such as chemical peels, lasers, and microneedling for enhanced absorption and efficacy. As newer agents are developed, additional well-designed studies will be needed to determine their safety and efficacy in different skin types as well as their role in the treatment of pigmentary disorders.

Disorders of hyperpigmentation—melasma, postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, lichen planus pigmentosus, erythema dyschromicum perstans, and pigmented contact dermatitis, among others—are common and challenging to treat. Although they can affect individuals of all skin types, they most commonly are seen in skin of color; in fact, dyspigmentation is one of the most common chief concerns for which individuals of color see a dermatologist.^1,2

For many years, hydroquinone (HQ) was one of the main options available for use as a lightening agent. Although effective, it has the risk of causing irritant dermatitis, potentially leading to further dyspigmentation, in addition to the risk of ochronosis with long-term use. It remains an important and useful treatment for pigmentary disorders, but there are numerous other lightening agents that also can be considered in the treatment of disorders of hyperpigmentation.

Herein, we provide recommendations for traditional and newer non-HQ lightening agents that can be considered when treating disorders of hyperpigmentation.

Traditional Non-HQ Lightening Agents

Retinoids—Retinoids are topical vitamin A derivatives that have been used safely and effectively for decades in the treatment of pigmentary disorders. Retinoids have multiple mechanisms of action in improving pigmentation. In addition to impeding tyrosinase induction, they inhibit pigment transfer to keratinocytes and lead to accelerated pigment loss due to epidermal shedding.³ Over-the-counter formulations include retinol, retinaldehyde, and adapalene. Prescription formulations include tretinoin and tazarotene in different strengths and vehicle formulations.⁴

Glycolic Acid—Glycolic acid is derived from sugarcane and is considered an α-hydroxy acid that leads to rapid desquamation of pigmented keratinocytes.⁵ Glycolic acid can not only be used in chemical peels but also in topical creams. It is the most common α-hydroxy acid peel and is sometimes paired with HQ and other topical lightening agents for increased penetration. Glycolic acid peels are available in concentrations of 20% to 70% and can be used at various depths. When used incorrectly, it can cause redness, burning, and even skin discoloration; however, when used at the proper concentrations and depth according to Fitzpatrick skin type, there typically are no notable adverse effects, and clinical results are favorable.

Kojic Acid—Kojic acid is a natural metabolite derived from fungi and is widely used in Asian countries. It works by inhibiting the catecholase activity of tyrosinase⁶ and typically is available in concentrations of 1% to 4%. A study suggested that a concentration of 1% or less typically is safe to use for prolonged periods without adverse effects. Although not more effective than HQ as a monotherapy, kojic acid has been shown to haveimproved efficacy when used in combination with other lightening agents.⁷

Azelaic Acid—Azelaic acid works by inhibiting tyrosinase, mitochondrial oxidoreductase activation, and DNA synthesis. It preferentially targets heavily pigmented melanocytes and possesses anti-inflammatory and antibacterial properties.⁸ A 20% concentration of azelaic acid was compared to HQ 4% for the treatment of melasma, and results revealed that the liposomal form of azelaic acid was considerably more tolerable than HQ 4% and also more effective.⁹

Licorice Extracts—Licorice extracts have been safely used in several cosmeceutical skin lightening products.¹⁰ The main active compounds in licorice root are glabridin and liquiritin, which work to disperse melanin. These compounds often are used topically at concentrations of 10% to 40%. A study by Amer and Metwalli¹¹ found that topical liquiritin produced a reduction of pigmentary intensity, with 80% of patients showing an excellent response, which was described as no difference between the previously pigmented area and the normal skin surrounding it.

Aloesin—Aloesin is a low-molecular-weight glycoprotein found in aloe vera plants. Its mechanism of action includes competitive inhibition of the dihydroxyphenylalanine oxidation site, resulting in the inhibition of tyrosinase.¹² It often is combined with arbutin for an enhanced lightening effect.

Niacinamide—Niacinamide is a form of vitamin B₃ that works by suppressing the transfer of melanosomes to keratinocytes.¹³ In addition to its skin lightening effects, it also is photoprotective and antimicrobial, and its tolerability and safety have led to its inclusion in many cosmeceutical and prescription products.¹⁴

Ascorbic Acid—Ascorbic acid affects the monopherase activity of tyrosinase, thus reducing the synthesis of melanin. It also serves as an antioxidant in the skin by preventing the production of free radicals that can induce melanogenesis.¹⁵ Although it tends to be well tolerated with a low adverse effect profile, its relative instability and varying permeability can present a challenge. It is less effective as a monotherapy, so it often is combined with other lightening ingredients for greater efficacy.

Corticosteroids—Topical corticosteroids are anti-inflammatory and impact melanogenesis, though the mechanism of action of the latter has not been fully elucidated.^16,17 Low- to mid-potency topical steroids often are used in conjunction with skin lightening products to diminish irritation and decrease inflammation.¹⁸ However, prolonged use of corticosteroids can lead to cutaneous adverse effects such as striae, hypopigmentation, and acne, as well as systemic side effects if there is sufficient absorption over time.

Soybean Extracts—Soybean extracts contain serine protease inhibitors that reduce the transfer of melanosomes into keratinocytes by inhibiting the PAR-2 (protease-activated receptor 2) pathway.^19,20

Ellagic Acid—Ellagic acid is found in common plants such as eucalyptus and strawberry as well as green tea.²¹ It works as an antioxidant and decreases melanogenesis through inhibition of tyrosinase activity.

Paper Mulberry—Paper mulberry extract comes from the roots of the Broussonetia papyrifera tree and functions by inhibiting tyrosinase activity. It is widely used in South Africa and Europe.²²

Resveratrol—Resveratrol is an ingredient extracted from Morus alba L and functions as an antimelanogentic agent by directly inhibiting tyrosinase as well as transcriptional and posttranscriptional processing of tyrosinase.²³ It also holds antiproliferative, anti-inflammatory, and antioxidant properties and has widely been used for antiaging and skin lightening purposes.²⁴

Newer Non-HQ Lightening Agents

Silymarin—Silymarin (also known as milk thistle [Silybum marianum]), is a polyphenolic flavonoid that possesses anticarcinogenic, antioxidant, and anti-inflammatory properties. It prevents melanin production in a dose-dependent manner by inhibiting levodopa (L-dopa) oxidation activity of tyrosinase and also reduces the expression of tyrosinase protein.²⁵ In combination with vitamins C and E and hexylresorcinol, silymarin has been found to reduce the effects of photodamage, brighten skin, improve evenness and lines, as well as improve global facial appearance.²⁶

Malassezin—Malassezin is an indole produced by Malessezia furfur yeast and has recently been investigated for melanogenesis suppression. Grimes et al²⁷ assessed the efficacy of topical malassezin in 7 patients with facial hyperpigmentation applied twice daily for 14 weeks. Punch biopsies were taken at weeks 0, 8, 14, and 22. Biopsies from weeks 8 and 14 demonstrated reduced epidermal melanin compared to baseline in all participants; however, at 22 weeks, biopsies showed no difference in melanin content compared to baseline, indicating a temporary process induced by the malassezin.²⁷ More clinical studies are needed to investigate this further.

N-acetyl-glucosamine—N-acetyl-glucosamine is an aminosaccharide that inhibits the glycosylation of tyrosinase as well as its function in melanogenesis.²⁸ It is synthesized and included in topical products for wound healing, rhytides, moisturization, and pigmentation disorders.

Topical Tranexamic Acid—Tranexamic acid traditionally has been used orally for the treatment of menorrhagia but also has been found to be beneficial as a therapy for hyperpigmentation and erythema. Tranexamic acid interferes with plasmin activity, thus indirectly inhibiting melanogenesis while also inhibiting angiogenesis by targeting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors.²⁹ It also leads to an increase in the levels of β-endorphin and μ-opioid receptors as well as the expression of estrogen receptor β on the surface of mast cells.³⁰ Its oral benefit led to the development of topical formulations, typically in 2% to 5% concentrations. It has proven particularly beneficial in the treatment of melasma due to its effects on improving pigmentation, erythema, and skin barrier function.³¹ Topical tranexamic acid has a relatively high safety profile, with minor side effects such as transient skin irritation and erythema being reported.³²

Cysteamine—Cysteamine inhibits tyrosinase, peroxidase, and chelating copper ions necessary for melanogenesis. It has proven to be effective in treating melasma and chronic severe postinflammatory hyperpigmentation when used in a 5% cream formulation.^33,34 Lima et al³⁵ were the first to compare the effects of topical cysteamine to HQ in the treatment of facial melasma. They found that the mean reduction in modified Melasma Area and Severity Index score was 24% for cysteamine and 41% for HQ after 60 days. There were no severe adverse effects with either treatment group.³⁵

Final Thoughts

Hydroquinone remains the gold standard for treatment of hyperpigmentation; however, its side-effect profile and risk of ochronosis with long-term use has ushered in various other safe and effective skin lightening agents that can be used as monotherapies or in combination with other lightening agents. Many of these products also can be used effectively with procedural treatments such as chemical peels, lasers, and microneedling for enhanced absorption and efficacy. As newer agents are developed, additional well-designed studies will be needed to determine their safety and efficacy in different skin types as well as their role in the treatment of pigmentary disorders.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. -- Over 25 years of clinical research, phase 3 trials of approved disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) were overwhelmingly made up of White subjects, a new analysis finds, and many studies failed to report percentages of non-White subjects at all. Researchers also found that the websites of multiple major drug manufacturers don’t include any trial data about how medications may affect people of different races and ethnicities.

It’s clear that “non-White participants are significantly underreported and unrepresented,” said study corresponding author and Dell Medical School/The University of Texas at Austin neurologist Leorah Freeman, MD, PhD, in an interview. “Despite the globalization of MS trials over time, we do not see that trials are enrolling more diverse populations.”

The study was presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers and published in Neurology.

“The lack of diversity in MS research is something that has been sporadically discussed in the past. By conducting this systematic review of MS phase 3 trials, we wanted to put numbers on this issue and review the evidence systematically,” Dr. Freeman said. “By doing so, we hoped to raise awareness about the problem of underreporting and underrepresentation of non-White participants in trials so that we, as a community involved in MS research, can start having the difficult conversations needed for change to occur.”
 

25 years of clinical research

The researchers reviewed 44 phase 3 studies from 1995-2020 that represented 45 trials. “We wanted to capture data from the very first global trials being conducted for the approval of MS DMTs, and the first was published in 1995,” Dr. Freeman said. “We were interested in understanding the impact of trial globalization over a long period of time on diversity of enrollment.”

The studies include trials of mainstays of MS treatment such as interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, diroximel fumarate, fingolimod, natalizumab, and others.

The researchers found that 17 (37.8%) of the trials did not report race or ethnicity, 14 (31.1%) reported race and ethnicity as proportion of White participants only, and 14 (31.1%) reported 2 or more races/ethnicities.

Of the 28 trials with racial breakdowns, the median percentage of White participants was 93.8% (range 78.5-99.6% across 28 studies), 1.9% for Black participants (range 0.1-8.1% across 14 studies), and 0.5% for Asian participants (range 0.1-14.5% across 11 studies).

The studies often failed to account for non-White subjects even though “Black people, in particular, have been shown to have a more severe disease course,” Dr. Freeman said.

A 2022 study of more than 2.6 million Southern California adults finds that prevalence of MS was similar among White and Black people at about 230 per 100,000. “Taken together with previous studies, these findings indicate that the burden of MS in the United States Black community has long been underrecognized,” the researchers wrote.

According to Dr. Freeman, it’s unclear why the studies were so dominated by White subjects. “Lack of awareness about the importance of this information likely explains why this information often goes unreported.”

She highlighted the TOWER (teriflunomide) and DEFINE and CONFIRM (dimethyl fumarate) studies as positive examples. “We noted the inclusion of trial sites in Asia and consequently a higher representation of Asian people with MS in those trials. We felt these studies were examples of how trial globalization can support better representation of underrepresented groups.”

And she noted that the ongoing CHIMES trial is examining the use of ocrelizumab in Black and Hispanic people with MS. “This study was designed in partnership with MS patients and advocacy groups to bridge gaps in clinical trial participation in these communities,” she said. “Innovative strategies were developed to increase participation of Black and Hispanic patients in this trial.”
 

What should happen next?

Going forward, Dr. Freeman said, “MS researchers, DMT manufacturers, sponsors, and publishers need to set better standards for racial and ethnic representation and reporting in trial publications.”

In an interview, epidemiologist Luisa N. Borrell, DDS, PhD, a professor who studies race and medicine at City University of New York, said the new study is valid and useful. She noted that it reflects the findings of a 2022 analysis of more than 20,500 clinical trials in the U.S. from 2000-2020: Only 43% reported racial/ethnic breakdowns, and the subjects were much more White than the population at large.

Possible reasons for the disparity include distrust among possible participants and lack of health literacy, she said, which are both “modifiable issues.”

Dr. Borrell added: “Clinical trials should aim to recruit populations affected by the outcome of interest. That would allow for the intervention to effectively treat those who need it the most. Moreover, the lack of diversity of trials brings issues of generalizability and transportability of the findings.”

No funding is reported. Dr. Freeman and some of the other study authors report various disclosures.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. -- Over 25 years of clinical research, phase 3 trials of approved disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) were overwhelmingly made up of White subjects, a new analysis finds, and many studies failed to report percentages of non-White subjects at all. Researchers also found that the websites of multiple major drug manufacturers don’t include any trial data about how medications may affect people of different races and ethnicities.

It’s clear that “non-White participants are significantly underreported and unrepresented,” said study corresponding author and Dell Medical School/The University of Texas at Austin neurologist Leorah Freeman, MD, PhD, in an interview. “Despite the globalization of MS trials over time, we do not see that trials are enrolling more diverse populations.”

The study was presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers and published in Neurology.

“The lack of diversity in MS research is something that has been sporadically discussed in the past. By conducting this systematic review of MS phase 3 trials, we wanted to put numbers on this issue and review the evidence systematically,” Dr. Freeman said. “By doing so, we hoped to raise awareness about the problem of underreporting and underrepresentation of non-White participants in trials so that we, as a community involved in MS research, can start having the difficult conversations needed for change to occur.”
 

25 years of clinical research

The researchers reviewed 44 phase 3 studies from 1995-2020 that represented 45 trials. “We wanted to capture data from the very first global trials being conducted for the approval of MS DMTs, and the first was published in 1995,” Dr. Freeman said. “We were interested in understanding the impact of trial globalization over a long period of time on diversity of enrollment.”

The studies include trials of mainstays of MS treatment such as interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, diroximel fumarate, fingolimod, natalizumab, and others.

The researchers found that 17 (37.8%) of the trials did not report race or ethnicity, 14 (31.1%) reported race and ethnicity as proportion of White participants only, and 14 (31.1%) reported 2 or more races/ethnicities.

Of the 28 trials with racial breakdowns, the median percentage of White participants was 93.8% (range 78.5-99.6% across 28 studies), 1.9% for Black participants (range 0.1-8.1% across 14 studies), and 0.5% for Asian participants (range 0.1-14.5% across 11 studies).

The studies often failed to account for non-White subjects even though “Black people, in particular, have been shown to have a more severe disease course,” Dr. Freeman said.

A 2022 study of more than 2.6 million Southern California adults finds that prevalence of MS was similar among White and Black people at about 230 per 100,000. “Taken together with previous studies, these findings indicate that the burden of MS in the United States Black community has long been underrecognized,” the researchers wrote.

According to Dr. Freeman, it’s unclear why the studies were so dominated by White subjects. “Lack of awareness about the importance of this information likely explains why this information often goes unreported.”

She highlighted the TOWER (teriflunomide) and DEFINE and CONFIRM (dimethyl fumarate) studies as positive examples. “We noted the inclusion of trial sites in Asia and consequently a higher representation of Asian people with MS in those trials. We felt these studies were examples of how trial globalization can support better representation of underrepresented groups.”

And she noted that the ongoing CHIMES trial is examining the use of ocrelizumab in Black and Hispanic people with MS. “This study was designed in partnership with MS patients and advocacy groups to bridge gaps in clinical trial participation in these communities,” she said. “Innovative strategies were developed to increase participation of Black and Hispanic patients in this trial.”
 

What should happen next?

Going forward, Dr. Freeman said, “MS researchers, DMT manufacturers, sponsors, and publishers need to set better standards for racial and ethnic representation and reporting in trial publications.”

In an interview, epidemiologist Luisa N. Borrell, DDS, PhD, a professor who studies race and medicine at City University of New York, said the new study is valid and useful. She noted that it reflects the findings of a 2022 analysis of more than 20,500 clinical trials in the U.S. from 2000-2020: Only 43% reported racial/ethnic breakdowns, and the subjects were much more White than the population at large.

Possible reasons for the disparity include distrust among possible participants and lack of health literacy, she said, which are both “modifiable issues.”

Dr. Borrell added: “Clinical trials should aim to recruit populations affected by the outcome of interest. That would allow for the intervention to effectively treat those who need it the most. Moreover, the lack of diversity of trials brings issues of generalizability and transportability of the findings.”

No funding is reported. Dr. Freeman and some of the other study authors report various disclosures.

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD. -- Over 25 years of clinical research, phase 3 trials of approved disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) were overwhelmingly made up of White subjects, a new analysis finds, and many studies failed to report percentages of non-White subjects at all. Researchers also found that the websites of multiple major drug manufacturers don’t include any trial data about how medications may affect people of different races and ethnicities.

It’s clear that “non-White participants are significantly underreported and unrepresented,” said study corresponding author and Dell Medical School/The University of Texas at Austin neurologist Leorah Freeman, MD, PhD, in an interview. “Despite the globalization of MS trials over time, we do not see that trials are enrolling more diverse populations.”

The study was presented at the annual meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers and published in Neurology.

“The lack of diversity in MS research is something that has been sporadically discussed in the past. By conducting this systematic review of MS phase 3 trials, we wanted to put numbers on this issue and review the evidence systematically,” Dr. Freeman said. “By doing so, we hoped to raise awareness about the problem of underreporting and underrepresentation of non-White participants in trials so that we, as a community involved in MS research, can start having the difficult conversations needed for change to occur.”
 

25 years of clinical research

The researchers reviewed 44 phase 3 studies from 1995-2020 that represented 45 trials. “We wanted to capture data from the very first global trials being conducted for the approval of MS DMTs, and the first was published in 1995,” Dr. Freeman said. “We were interested in understanding the impact of trial globalization over a long period of time on diversity of enrollment.”

The studies include trials of mainstays of MS treatment such as interferon, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, diroximel fumarate, fingolimod, natalizumab, and others.

The researchers found that 17 (37.8%) of the trials did not report race or ethnicity, 14 (31.1%) reported race and ethnicity as proportion of White participants only, and 14 (31.1%) reported 2 or more races/ethnicities.

Of the 28 trials with racial breakdowns, the median percentage of White participants was 93.8% (range 78.5-99.6% across 28 studies), 1.9% for Black participants (range 0.1-8.1% across 14 studies), and 0.5% for Asian participants (range 0.1-14.5% across 11 studies).

The studies often failed to account for non-White subjects even though “Black people, in particular, have been shown to have a more severe disease course,” Dr. Freeman said.

A 2022 study of more than 2.6 million Southern California adults finds that prevalence of MS was similar among White and Black people at about 230 per 100,000. “Taken together with previous studies, these findings indicate that the burden of MS in the United States Black community has long been underrecognized,” the researchers wrote.

According to Dr. Freeman, it’s unclear why the studies were so dominated by White subjects. “Lack of awareness about the importance of this information likely explains why this information often goes unreported.”

She highlighted the TOWER (teriflunomide) and DEFINE and CONFIRM (dimethyl fumarate) studies as positive examples. “We noted the inclusion of trial sites in Asia and consequently a higher representation of Asian people with MS in those trials. We felt these studies were examples of how trial globalization can support better representation of underrepresented groups.”

And she noted that the ongoing CHIMES trial is examining the use of ocrelizumab in Black and Hispanic people with MS. “This study was designed in partnership with MS patients and advocacy groups to bridge gaps in clinical trial participation in these communities,” she said. “Innovative strategies were developed to increase participation of Black and Hispanic patients in this trial.”
 

What should happen next?

Going forward, Dr. Freeman said, “MS researchers, DMT manufacturers, sponsors, and publishers need to set better standards for racial and ethnic representation and reporting in trial publications.”

In an interview, epidemiologist Luisa N. Borrell, DDS, PhD, a professor who studies race and medicine at City University of New York, said the new study is valid and useful. She noted that it reflects the findings of a 2022 analysis of more than 20,500 clinical trials in the U.S. from 2000-2020: Only 43% reported racial/ethnic breakdowns, and the subjects were much more White than the population at large.

Possible reasons for the disparity include distrust among possible participants and lack of health literacy, she said, which are both “modifiable issues.”

Dr. Borrell added: “Clinical trials should aim to recruit populations affected by the outcome of interest. That would allow for the intervention to effectively treat those who need it the most. Moreover, the lack of diversity of trials brings issues of generalizability and transportability of the findings.”

No funding is reported. Dr. Freeman and some of the other study authors report various disclosures.

NEW ORLEANS – High out-of-pocket costs for medications used by patients with diabetes are tied to reduced use of these drugs and ultimately worse clinical outcomes, according to findings from two separate studies.

One study looked at the insurance records of more than 70,000 U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease who were already on metformin. The findings showed that, after adjustment for confounders, the quartile of patients with the highest out-of-pocket cost for an agent from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2)–inhibitor class filled a prescription for one of these drugs a significant 21% less often than did patients from the quartile with the lowest personal expense, after adjustment for a variety of potential confounding factors, reported Jing Luo, MD, at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

A similar analysis run by Dr. Luo and his associates looking at glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists showed that the quartile of patients who had to pay the most for one of those drugs had an adjusted 12% lower rate of filling a prescription, compared with those with the lowest out-of-pocket expense, a difference that fell just short of significance.

“If we consistently see that high drug costs affect use of highly effective medications in patients with type 2 diabetes and risk factors, it’s quite problematic because it’s not just a matter of money, but it also makes a difference in the patient’s quality of care,” Dr. Luo said in an interview.

Prevention drug lists can help

Consistency turned up in a second report at the same ADA session that retrospectively reviewed data collected during 2004-2017 by a single large U.S. health insurer to identify 3,315 matched pairs of children and adults with diabetes who all had high-deductible health plans for their medical insurance, along with an associated health savings account.

One set of patients in each matched pair began to receive, at some point during follow-up, coverage with a prevention drug list (PDL; also called a formulary) that provided them with a variety of specified agents at no charge. They included oral antidiabetes agents, insulin, antihypertensives, and lipid-lowering drugs. The other half of the matched pairs of patients received no PDL coverage and had copays for their antidiabetes medications.

The findings showed that the rates of out-of-pocket costs for antidiabetes drugs, antidiabetic medications used, and acute diabetes complications all tracked extremely closely between the matched pairs before half of them started to receive their PDL coverage. However, after PDL coverage kicked in, out of pocket costs dropped by 32% for the people with PDL coverage, compared with those who did not receive this coverage. Oral antidiabetes medication use rose modestly, but acute diabetes complications “declined substantially,” with a 14% relative reduction overall in those with PDL coverage, compared with those without, reported J. Franklin Wharam, MBBCh, a professor and health policy researcher at Duke University in Durham, N.C. In the roughly half of the study cohort who fell into a low-income category based on where they lived, the rate of excess acute diabetes complications was 23% higher for those without a PDL, compared with those who had that coverage.

PDL coverage linked with “large reductions in acute, preventable diabetes complications,” concluded Dr. Wharam. “Policy makers and employers should incentivize PDL uptake among low-income patients with diabetes.”

Newer, more effective drugs cost a lot

“The more comorbidities that patients have, the greater is the strength of the evidence for using newer antidiabetes drugs that are more expensive,” but that would mean spending much more on this part of patient care, noted Dr. Luo, an internal medicine physician and researcher at the University of Pittsburgh. “It will cost a lot of money, and I’m not sure what the solution is. It’s a huge conundrum.”

About 30 million Americans have type 2 diabetes. If every one of them went on an SGLT2 inhibitor, or went on an SGLT2 inhibitor plus a GLP-1 receptor agonist, “it would bankrupt the U.S. health care system, so we can’t do that,” commented Sylvio E. Inzucchi, MD, in an interview. “The only thing holding this back is cost. We target these drugs to the patients most apt to benefit from them. If they were generic they would be used much more widely,” noted Dr. Inzucchi, professor and clinical chief of endocrinology at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

The study run by Dr. Luo and his associates retrospectively reviewed data from 72,743 U.S. adults included in the Optum Clinformatics database during December 2017–December 2019. All included patients had type 2 diabetes, received metformin monotherapy, and had established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. They averaged 72 years of age, 56% were men, and 88% were on a Medicare Advantage plan, while the remainder had commercial insurance. Their average hemoglobin A1c level was 6.8%.

People in the quartile with the lowest copays spent an average of about $20/month for either an SGLT2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 receptor agonist. Those in the quartile with the highest copays spent roughly $100/month for agents from each of these two classes. The analysis followed patients for a median of 914 days.

In addition to finding disparate rates of drug use between these two quartiles, the analysis also showed that higher copays linked with longer times to initially fill prescriptions for these drugs. But while those with higher copays took longer to start both classes than did those with the smallest copays, even those with the lowest out-of-pocket costs averaged about a year to initiate treatment.

Dr. Luo attributed this delay to other factors besides costs to patients, such as clinicians prescribing other classes of second-line oral antidiabetes agents, clinical inertia, and lack of awareness by clinicians of the special benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor antagonists for patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

“A lot of clinical and social factors drive medication use,” not just out-of-pocket cost, he explained.

Dr. Luo is a consultant to Alosa Health. Dr. Wharam had no disclosures. Dr. Inzucchi is an adviser to Abbott Diagnostics, Esperion Therapeutics, and vTv Therapeutics, a consultant to Merck and Pfizer, and has other relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lexicon, and Novo Nordisk.

NEW ORLEANS – High out-of-pocket costs for medications used by patients with diabetes are tied to reduced use of these drugs and ultimately worse clinical outcomes, according to findings from two separate studies.

One study looked at the insurance records of more than 70,000 U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease who were already on metformin. The findings showed that, after adjustment for confounders, the quartile of patients with the highest out-of-pocket cost for an agent from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2)–inhibitor class filled a prescription for one of these drugs a significant 21% less often than did patients from the quartile with the lowest personal expense, after adjustment for a variety of potential confounding factors, reported Jing Luo, MD, at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

A similar analysis run by Dr. Luo and his associates looking at glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists showed that the quartile of patients who had to pay the most for one of those drugs had an adjusted 12% lower rate of filling a prescription, compared with those with the lowest out-of-pocket expense, a difference that fell just short of significance.

“If we consistently see that high drug costs affect use of highly effective medications in patients with type 2 diabetes and risk factors, it’s quite problematic because it’s not just a matter of money, but it also makes a difference in the patient’s quality of care,” Dr. Luo said in an interview.

Prevention drug lists can help

Consistency turned up in a second report at the same ADA session that retrospectively reviewed data collected during 2004-2017 by a single large U.S. health insurer to identify 3,315 matched pairs of children and adults with diabetes who all had high-deductible health plans for their medical insurance, along with an associated health savings account.

One set of patients in each matched pair began to receive, at some point during follow-up, coverage with a prevention drug list (PDL; also called a formulary) that provided them with a variety of specified agents at no charge. They included oral antidiabetes agents, insulin, antihypertensives, and lipid-lowering drugs. The other half of the matched pairs of patients received no PDL coverage and had copays for their antidiabetes medications.

The findings showed that the rates of out-of-pocket costs for antidiabetes drugs, antidiabetic medications used, and acute diabetes complications all tracked extremely closely between the matched pairs before half of them started to receive their PDL coverage. However, after PDL coverage kicked in, out of pocket costs dropped by 32% for the people with PDL coverage, compared with those who did not receive this coverage. Oral antidiabetes medication use rose modestly, but acute diabetes complications “declined substantially,” with a 14% relative reduction overall in those with PDL coverage, compared with those without, reported J. Franklin Wharam, MBBCh, a professor and health policy researcher at Duke University in Durham, N.C. In the roughly half of the study cohort who fell into a low-income category based on where they lived, the rate of excess acute diabetes complications was 23% higher for those without a PDL, compared with those who had that coverage.

PDL coverage linked with “large reductions in acute, preventable diabetes complications,” concluded Dr. Wharam. “Policy makers and employers should incentivize PDL uptake among low-income patients with diabetes.”

Newer, more effective drugs cost a lot

“The more comorbidities that patients have, the greater is the strength of the evidence for using newer antidiabetes drugs that are more expensive,” but that would mean spending much more on this part of patient care, noted Dr. Luo, an internal medicine physician and researcher at the University of Pittsburgh. “It will cost a lot of money, and I’m not sure what the solution is. It’s a huge conundrum.”

About 30 million Americans have type 2 diabetes. If every one of them went on an SGLT2 inhibitor, or went on an SGLT2 inhibitor plus a GLP-1 receptor agonist, “it would bankrupt the U.S. health care system, so we can’t do that,” commented Sylvio E. Inzucchi, MD, in an interview. “The only thing holding this back is cost. We target these drugs to the patients most apt to benefit from them. If they were generic they would be used much more widely,” noted Dr. Inzucchi, professor and clinical chief of endocrinology at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

The study run by Dr. Luo and his associates retrospectively reviewed data from 72,743 U.S. adults included in the Optum Clinformatics database during December 2017–December 2019. All included patients had type 2 diabetes, received metformin monotherapy, and had established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. They averaged 72 years of age, 56% were men, and 88% were on a Medicare Advantage plan, while the remainder had commercial insurance. Their average hemoglobin A1c level was 6.8%.

People in the quartile with the lowest copays spent an average of about $20/month for either an SGLT2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 receptor agonist. Those in the quartile with the highest copays spent roughly $100/month for agents from each of these two classes. The analysis followed patients for a median of 914 days.

In addition to finding disparate rates of drug use between these two quartiles, the analysis also showed that higher copays linked with longer times to initially fill prescriptions for these drugs. But while those with higher copays took longer to start both classes than did those with the smallest copays, even those with the lowest out-of-pocket costs averaged about a year to initiate treatment.

Dr. Luo attributed this delay to other factors besides costs to patients, such as clinicians prescribing other classes of second-line oral antidiabetes agents, clinical inertia, and lack of awareness by clinicians of the special benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor antagonists for patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

“A lot of clinical and social factors drive medication use,” not just out-of-pocket cost, he explained.

Dr. Luo is a consultant to Alosa Health. Dr. Wharam had no disclosures. Dr. Inzucchi is an adviser to Abbott Diagnostics, Esperion Therapeutics, and vTv Therapeutics, a consultant to Merck and Pfizer, and has other relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lexicon, and Novo Nordisk.

NEW ORLEANS – High out-of-pocket costs for medications used by patients with diabetes are tied to reduced use of these drugs and ultimately worse clinical outcomes, according to findings from two separate studies.

One study looked at the insurance records of more than 70,000 U.S. patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease who were already on metformin. The findings showed that, after adjustment for confounders, the quartile of patients with the highest out-of-pocket cost for an agent from the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2)–inhibitor class filled a prescription for one of these drugs a significant 21% less often than did patients from the quartile with the lowest personal expense, after adjustment for a variety of potential confounding factors, reported Jing Luo, MD, at the annual scientific sessions of the American Diabetes Association.

A similar analysis run by Dr. Luo and his associates looking at glucagonlike peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists showed that the quartile of patients who had to pay the most for one of those drugs had an adjusted 12% lower rate of filling a prescription, compared with those with the lowest out-of-pocket expense, a difference that fell just short of significance.

“If we consistently see that high drug costs affect use of highly effective medications in patients with type 2 diabetes and risk factors, it’s quite problematic because it’s not just a matter of money, but it also makes a difference in the patient’s quality of care,” Dr. Luo said in an interview.

Prevention drug lists can help

Consistency turned up in a second report at the same ADA session that retrospectively reviewed data collected during 2004-2017 by a single large U.S. health insurer to identify 3,315 matched pairs of children and adults with diabetes who all had high-deductible health plans for their medical insurance, along with an associated health savings account.

One set of patients in each matched pair began to receive, at some point during follow-up, coverage with a prevention drug list (PDL; also called a formulary) that provided them with a variety of specified agents at no charge. They included oral antidiabetes agents, insulin, antihypertensives, and lipid-lowering drugs. The other half of the matched pairs of patients received no PDL coverage and had copays for their antidiabetes medications.

The findings showed that the rates of out-of-pocket costs for antidiabetes drugs, antidiabetic medications used, and acute diabetes complications all tracked extremely closely between the matched pairs before half of them started to receive their PDL coverage. However, after PDL coverage kicked in, out of pocket costs dropped by 32% for the people with PDL coverage, compared with those who did not receive this coverage. Oral antidiabetes medication use rose modestly, but acute diabetes complications “declined substantially,” with a 14% relative reduction overall in those with PDL coverage, compared with those without, reported J. Franklin Wharam, MBBCh, a professor and health policy researcher at Duke University in Durham, N.C. In the roughly half of the study cohort who fell into a low-income category based on where they lived, the rate of excess acute diabetes complications was 23% higher for those without a PDL, compared with those who had that coverage.

PDL coverage linked with “large reductions in acute, preventable diabetes complications,” concluded Dr. Wharam. “Policy makers and employers should incentivize PDL uptake among low-income patients with diabetes.”

Newer, more effective drugs cost a lot

“The more comorbidities that patients have, the greater is the strength of the evidence for using newer antidiabetes drugs that are more expensive,” but that would mean spending much more on this part of patient care, noted Dr. Luo, an internal medicine physician and researcher at the University of Pittsburgh. “It will cost a lot of money, and I’m not sure what the solution is. It’s a huge conundrum.”

About 30 million Americans have type 2 diabetes. If every one of them went on an SGLT2 inhibitor, or went on an SGLT2 inhibitor plus a GLP-1 receptor agonist, “it would bankrupt the U.S. health care system, so we can’t do that,” commented Sylvio E. Inzucchi, MD, in an interview. “The only thing holding this back is cost. We target these drugs to the patients most apt to benefit from them. If they were generic they would be used much more widely,” noted Dr. Inzucchi, professor and clinical chief of endocrinology at Yale University in New Haven, Conn.

The study run by Dr. Luo and his associates retrospectively reviewed data from 72,743 U.S. adults included in the Optum Clinformatics database during December 2017–December 2019. All included patients had type 2 diabetes, received metformin monotherapy, and had established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. They averaged 72 years of age, 56% were men, and 88% were on a Medicare Advantage plan, while the remainder had commercial insurance. Their average hemoglobin A1c level was 6.8%.

People in the quartile with the lowest copays spent an average of about $20/month for either an SGLT2 inhibitor or a GLP-1 receptor agonist. Those in the quartile with the highest copays spent roughly $100/month for agents from each of these two classes. The analysis followed patients for a median of 914 days.

In addition to finding disparate rates of drug use between these two quartiles, the analysis also showed that higher copays linked with longer times to initially fill prescriptions for these drugs. But while those with higher copays took longer to start both classes than did those with the smallest copays, even those with the lowest out-of-pocket costs averaged about a year to initiate treatment.

Dr. Luo attributed this delay to other factors besides costs to patients, such as clinicians prescribing other classes of second-line oral antidiabetes agents, clinical inertia, and lack of awareness by clinicians of the special benefits of SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor antagonists for patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

“A lot of clinical and social factors drive medication use,” not just out-of-pocket cost, he explained.

Dr. Luo is a consultant to Alosa Health. Dr. Wharam had no disclosures. Dr. Inzucchi is an adviser to Abbott Diagnostics, Esperion Therapeutics, and vTv Therapeutics, a consultant to Merck and Pfizer, and has other relationships with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lexicon, and Novo Nordisk.

CHICAGO – The COVID pandemic pushed telemedicine forward as a safe, accessible, and more widely reimbursed approach to care delivery for patients with cancer, but uptake of telemedicine was plagued by inequities, a retrospective study suggests.

Before March 2020, only a very small percentage of patients with cancer used telemedicine services.

By November 2021, nearly 16% of patients initiating cancer treatment were using this approach.

However, certain groups were less likely to use telemedicine, in particular, patients who were Black, uninsured, did not live in cities, and were less affluent, noted lead author Jenny S. Guadamuz, PhD, a quantitative scientist at Flatiron Health and a postdoctoral research associate at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

The results are concerning because they suggest that telemedicine expansion could widen cancer care disparities, Dr. Guadamuz said. Previous studies found racial disparities in care access and outcomes early on in the pandemic.

“These findings are critically important considering recent efforts to make coverage of telemedicine services permanent, instead of tied to the [Health and Human Services] public health emergency declaration,” she said. “There are also efforts to increase reimbursement rates for telemedicine services by Medicare, several Medicaid programs, and private insurers.”

This study was highlighted at a press briefing held in advance of the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting, where it will be presented at a poster session (abstract 6511).

ASCO President Everett E. Vokes, MD, said telemedicine is “an important tool to communicate with patients” but that it is important to consider the “digital divide.”

He also emphasized the need “to expand and learn to use telehealth not in a crisis but as part of our regular care moving forward.” In July 2021, as telemedicine services were expanding, ASCO released practice recommendations specific to telehealth and oncology.

“Telemedicine can improve access to timely cancer care, but, as this study points out, telemedicine must be available equitably, so that every patient can access the care they need and deserve,” he said in a press statement.
 

Study details

For the study, Dr. Guadamuz and colleagues assessed telemedicine uptake by nearly 27,000 patients in a Flatiron electronic health record–derived deidentified database of patients who initiated treatment for any of 21 common cancers at about 280 community oncology clinics between March 2020 and November 2021.

They found that Black patients were significantly less likely than were White patients to use telemedicine (13.2% vs. 15.6%; odds ratio [OR], 0.82), as were patients without documented insurance, compared with those who were well insured (11.6% vs. 16.4%; OR, 0.68).

Those in rural and suburban areas were less likely than were those in urban areas to use telemedicine (9.7% and 13.0% vs. 17.7%; ORs, 0.50 and 0.69, respectively), and those in less affluent vs. more affluent areas were also less likely to use telemedicine (10.6% vs. 23.6%, OR, 0.39).

Dr. Guadamuz noted that the differences remained statistically significant after adjustment for clinical characteristics and that racial inequities were seen across cancer types and over time.

Future work should assess other potential characteristics associated with telemedicine inequities, evaluate whether health care delivered via telemedicine is of similar quality as in-person services, and determine the types of practice that are providing telemedicine more equitably to their patients, she concluded.

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

CHICAGO – The COVID pandemic pushed telemedicine forward as a safe, accessible, and more widely reimbursed approach to care delivery for patients with cancer, but uptake of telemedicine was plagued by inequities, a retrospective study suggests.

Before March 2020, only a very small percentage of patients with cancer used telemedicine services.

By November 2021, nearly 16% of patients initiating cancer treatment were using this approach.

However, certain groups were less likely to use telemedicine, in particular, patients who were Black, uninsured, did not live in cities, and were less affluent, noted lead author Jenny S. Guadamuz, PhD, a quantitative scientist at Flatiron Health and a postdoctoral research associate at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

The results are concerning because they suggest that telemedicine expansion could widen cancer care disparities, Dr. Guadamuz said. Previous studies found racial disparities in care access and outcomes early on in the pandemic.

“These findings are critically important considering recent efforts to make coverage of telemedicine services permanent, instead of tied to the [Health and Human Services] public health emergency declaration,” she said. “There are also efforts to increase reimbursement rates for telemedicine services by Medicare, several Medicaid programs, and private insurers.”

This study was highlighted at a press briefing held in advance of the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting, where it will be presented at a poster session (abstract 6511).

ASCO President Everett E. Vokes, MD, said telemedicine is “an important tool to communicate with patients” but that it is important to consider the “digital divide.”

He also emphasized the need “to expand and learn to use telehealth not in a crisis but as part of our regular care moving forward.” In July 2021, as telemedicine services were expanding, ASCO released practice recommendations specific to telehealth and oncology.

“Telemedicine can improve access to timely cancer care, but, as this study points out, telemedicine must be available equitably, so that every patient can access the care they need and deserve,” he said in a press statement.
 

Study details

For the study, Dr. Guadamuz and colleagues assessed telemedicine uptake by nearly 27,000 patients in a Flatiron electronic health record–derived deidentified database of patients who initiated treatment for any of 21 common cancers at about 280 community oncology clinics between March 2020 and November 2021.

They found that Black patients were significantly less likely than were White patients to use telemedicine (13.2% vs. 15.6%; odds ratio [OR], 0.82), as were patients without documented insurance, compared with those who were well insured (11.6% vs. 16.4%; OR, 0.68).

Those in rural and suburban areas were less likely than were those in urban areas to use telemedicine (9.7% and 13.0% vs. 17.7%; ORs, 0.50 and 0.69, respectively), and those in less affluent vs. more affluent areas were also less likely to use telemedicine (10.6% vs. 23.6%, OR, 0.39).

Dr. Guadamuz noted that the differences remained statistically significant after adjustment for clinical characteristics and that racial inequities were seen across cancer types and over time.

Future work should assess other potential characteristics associated with telemedicine inequities, evaluate whether health care delivered via telemedicine is of similar quality as in-person services, and determine the types of practice that are providing telemedicine more equitably to their patients, she concluded.

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

CHICAGO – The COVID pandemic pushed telemedicine forward as a safe, accessible, and more widely reimbursed approach to care delivery for patients with cancer, but uptake of telemedicine was plagued by inequities, a retrospective study suggests.

Before March 2020, only a very small percentage of patients with cancer used telemedicine services.

By November 2021, nearly 16% of patients initiating cancer treatment were using this approach.

However, certain groups were less likely to use telemedicine, in particular, patients who were Black, uninsured, did not live in cities, and were less affluent, noted lead author Jenny S. Guadamuz, PhD, a quantitative scientist at Flatiron Health and a postdoctoral research associate at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

The results are concerning because they suggest that telemedicine expansion could widen cancer care disparities, Dr. Guadamuz said. Previous studies found racial disparities in care access and outcomes early on in the pandemic.

“These findings are critically important considering recent efforts to make coverage of telemedicine services permanent, instead of tied to the [Health and Human Services] public health emergency declaration,” she said. “There are also efforts to increase reimbursement rates for telemedicine services by Medicare, several Medicaid programs, and private insurers.”

This study was highlighted at a press briefing held in advance of the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting, where it will be presented at a poster session (abstract 6511).

ASCO President Everett E. Vokes, MD, said telemedicine is “an important tool to communicate with patients” but that it is important to consider the “digital divide.”

He also emphasized the need “to expand and learn to use telehealth not in a crisis but as part of our regular care moving forward.” In July 2021, as telemedicine services were expanding, ASCO released practice recommendations specific to telehealth and oncology.

“Telemedicine can improve access to timely cancer care, but, as this study points out, telemedicine must be available equitably, so that every patient can access the care they need and deserve,” he said in a press statement.
 

Study details

For the study, Dr. Guadamuz and colleagues assessed telemedicine uptake by nearly 27,000 patients in a Flatiron electronic health record–derived deidentified database of patients who initiated treatment for any of 21 common cancers at about 280 community oncology clinics between March 2020 and November 2021.

They found that Black patients were significantly less likely than were White patients to use telemedicine (13.2% vs. 15.6%; odds ratio [OR], 0.82), as were patients without documented insurance, compared with those who were well insured (11.6% vs. 16.4%; OR, 0.68).

Those in rural and suburban areas were less likely than were those in urban areas to use telemedicine (9.7% and 13.0% vs. 17.7%; ORs, 0.50 and 0.69, respectively), and those in less affluent vs. more affluent areas were also less likely to use telemedicine (10.6% vs. 23.6%, OR, 0.39).

Dr. Guadamuz noted that the differences remained statistically significant after adjustment for clinical characteristics and that racial inequities were seen across cancer types and over time.

Future work should assess other potential characteristics associated with telemedicine inequities, evaluate whether health care delivered via telemedicine is of similar quality as in-person services, and determine the types of practice that are providing telemedicine more equitably to their patients, she concluded.

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

Increasing social services spending by 10% led to improved survival for non-Hispanic Black adults with cancer, according to new research.

Five-year overall survival increased among non-Hispanic Black patients by 2.02% in conjunction with a 10% increase in spending. In addition, there was a decrease in racial disparities in survival between non-Hispanic Black patients and White patients for many types of cancers.

However, public welfare spending had no real impact on the overall 5-year survival for the entire cohort (0.25 % per 10% increase in spending; P = .78) or for non-Hispanic White patients (0.52% per 10% increase in spending, P = .58).

“We know from prior research that outcomes are worse for minorities,” said lead author Justin Michael Barnes, MD, from the department of radiation oncology at Washington University in St. Louis, Mo. “It’s thought that some of the differences are related to impaired access to health care for minorities, which is related to social determinants of health. This includes socioeconomic factors, educational attainment, place of residence, as well as environmental stressors.

“Our data show that greater state welfare expenditures were associated with greater 5-year survival among Black patients and decreased Black–White disparities,” said Dr. Barnes. “I think these data are thought provoking, but they certainly aren’t the end. I see these data as a proof-of-concept project.”

Dr. Barnes reported the findings at a press conference held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, during which the study will be presented (Abstract 6509).
 

Improved 5-year survival in Black patients

For the study, Dr. Barnes and colleagues evaluated the association of 5-year overall survival and public welfare spending in 2,925,550 individuals aged 18 years and older who were diagnosed with cancer during the period 2007-2016. The cohort was drawn from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. In addition, annual state spending data were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau. The team examined survival outcomes by race and ethnicity as well as by cancer site. The investigators accounted for factors such as age, sex, metropolitan residence, state, county-level income and education, insurance status, cancer site, stage at diagnosis, and year of diagnosis.

Much of public welfare spending was related to Medicaid but also included programs that provide subsidy assistance for individuals, such as Supplemental Security Income.

As compared with White patients, the 5-year overall survival rate was 10.8% lower among non-Hispanic Black patients. But there was a 4.46% (P for interaction <.001) narrowing of the 5-year overall survival disparity in non-Hispanic Black patients in comparison with White patients per 10% increase in spending, or a 42% closure of the 10.8% disparity.

Regarding specific cancer types, increased public welfare spending was associated with a narrowing of the 5-year overall survival disparity between Black patients and non-Hispanic White patients for the following cancers: breast (a 6.15% survival increase for Black patients led to a 39% closing of the disparity), cervix (a 11.9% survival increase led to a 46% closing of the disparity), colorectum (a 4.42% survival increase led to a 48% closing of the disparity), head and neck (a 9.41% survival increase led to a 38% closing of the disparity), liver (a 7.02% survival increase led to a 49% closing of the disparity), ovary (an 8.95% survival increase led to a 41% closing of the disparity), bladder (an 8.18% survival increase led to a 44% closing of the disparity), and uterus (a 14.1% survival increase led to a 40% closing of the disparity).

“Some type of public welfare seems to be helping improve oncologic outcomes for some of our most socioeconomically at-risk patients, but we don’t know the specifics,” Dr. Barnes concluded. “Additional work is needed to identify the most influential public health expenditures. If we can do this, we can more rigorously evaluate state-level policies and their association with cancer outcomes.”
 

Public welfare improves outcomes

Weighing in on the data, Sarah P. Cate, MD, director, Special Surveillance and Breast Program, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, noted that racial disparities have been identified in many areas of health care and with respect to many diseases. “In the world of oncology, time to diagnosis and treatment significantly impacts overall survival,” she told this news organization. “Many studies are currently underway to investigate why certain ethnic groups have worse cancer outcomes.”

This study is important, she noted, in that it “highlights a discrete source of correcting these disparities in a large group of patients. Obviously there are multiple barriers to care, but increased public welfare spending in oncology should decrease some of these disparities.”

Julie R. Gralow, MD, ASCO’s chief medical officer and executive vice president, commented that it is known that state public welfare spending can mitigate structural racism and at least partially address social determinants of health, such as financial stability, education, place of residence, and insurance status. “This research found that states that increased their public health spending improved overall survival in Black patients with a variety of solid tumors and also resulted in a decrease in racial disparities in survival,” she said. “This important data provides clear support for the benefits of investment in public welfare spending at the state level, including Medicaid expansion.”

The study did not receive funding. Dr. Barnes and Dr. Cate have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gralow has relationships with Genentech, AstraZeneca Hexal, Puma BioTechnology, Roche, Novartis, Seagen, and Genomic Health.

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

Increasing social services spending by 10% led to improved survival for non-Hispanic Black adults with cancer, according to new research.

Five-year overall survival increased among non-Hispanic Black patients by 2.02% in conjunction with a 10% increase in spending. In addition, there was a decrease in racial disparities in survival between non-Hispanic Black patients and White patients for many types of cancers.

However, public welfare spending had no real impact on the overall 5-year survival for the entire cohort (0.25 % per 10% increase in spending; P = .78) or for non-Hispanic White patients (0.52% per 10% increase in spending, P = .58).

“We know from prior research that outcomes are worse for minorities,” said lead author Justin Michael Barnes, MD, from the department of radiation oncology at Washington University in St. Louis, Mo. “It’s thought that some of the differences are related to impaired access to health care for minorities, which is related to social determinants of health. This includes socioeconomic factors, educational attainment, place of residence, as well as environmental stressors.

“Our data show that greater state welfare expenditures were associated with greater 5-year survival among Black patients and decreased Black–White disparities,” said Dr. Barnes. “I think these data are thought provoking, but they certainly aren’t the end. I see these data as a proof-of-concept project.”

Dr. Barnes reported the findings at a press conference held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, during which the study will be presented (Abstract 6509).
 

Improved 5-year survival in Black patients

For the study, Dr. Barnes and colleagues evaluated the association of 5-year overall survival and public welfare spending in 2,925,550 individuals aged 18 years and older who were diagnosed with cancer during the period 2007-2016. The cohort was drawn from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. In addition, annual state spending data were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau. The team examined survival outcomes by race and ethnicity as well as by cancer site. The investigators accounted for factors such as age, sex, metropolitan residence, state, county-level income and education, insurance status, cancer site, stage at diagnosis, and year of diagnosis.

Much of public welfare spending was related to Medicaid but also included programs that provide subsidy assistance for individuals, such as Supplemental Security Income.

As compared with White patients, the 5-year overall survival rate was 10.8% lower among non-Hispanic Black patients. But there was a 4.46% (P for interaction <.001) narrowing of the 5-year overall survival disparity in non-Hispanic Black patients in comparison with White patients per 10% increase in spending, or a 42% closure of the 10.8% disparity.

Regarding specific cancer types, increased public welfare spending was associated with a narrowing of the 5-year overall survival disparity between Black patients and non-Hispanic White patients for the following cancers: breast (a 6.15% survival increase for Black patients led to a 39% closing of the disparity), cervix (a 11.9% survival increase led to a 46% closing of the disparity), colorectum (a 4.42% survival increase led to a 48% closing of the disparity), head and neck (a 9.41% survival increase led to a 38% closing of the disparity), liver (a 7.02% survival increase led to a 49% closing of the disparity), ovary (an 8.95% survival increase led to a 41% closing of the disparity), bladder (an 8.18% survival increase led to a 44% closing of the disparity), and uterus (a 14.1% survival increase led to a 40% closing of the disparity).

“Some type of public welfare seems to be helping improve oncologic outcomes for some of our most socioeconomically at-risk patients, but we don’t know the specifics,” Dr. Barnes concluded. “Additional work is needed to identify the most influential public health expenditures. If we can do this, we can more rigorously evaluate state-level policies and their association with cancer outcomes.”
 

Public welfare improves outcomes

Weighing in on the data, Sarah P. Cate, MD, director, Special Surveillance and Breast Program, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, noted that racial disparities have been identified in many areas of health care and with respect to many diseases. “In the world of oncology, time to diagnosis and treatment significantly impacts overall survival,” she told this news organization. “Many studies are currently underway to investigate why certain ethnic groups have worse cancer outcomes.”

This study is important, she noted, in that it “highlights a discrete source of correcting these disparities in a large group of patients. Obviously there are multiple barriers to care, but increased public welfare spending in oncology should decrease some of these disparities.”

Julie R. Gralow, MD, ASCO’s chief medical officer and executive vice president, commented that it is known that state public welfare spending can mitigate structural racism and at least partially address social determinants of health, such as financial stability, education, place of residence, and insurance status. “This research found that states that increased their public health spending improved overall survival in Black patients with a variety of solid tumors and also resulted in a decrease in racial disparities in survival,” she said. “This important data provides clear support for the benefits of investment in public welfare spending at the state level, including Medicaid expansion.”

The study did not receive funding. Dr. Barnes and Dr. Cate have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gralow has relationships with Genentech, AstraZeneca Hexal, Puma BioTechnology, Roche, Novartis, Seagen, and Genomic Health.

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

Increasing social services spending by 10% led to improved survival for non-Hispanic Black adults with cancer, according to new research.

Five-year overall survival increased among non-Hispanic Black patients by 2.02% in conjunction with a 10% increase in spending. In addition, there was a decrease in racial disparities in survival between non-Hispanic Black patients and White patients for many types of cancers.

However, public welfare spending had no real impact on the overall 5-year survival for the entire cohort (0.25 % per 10% increase in spending; P = .78) or for non-Hispanic White patients (0.52% per 10% increase in spending, P = .58).

“We know from prior research that outcomes are worse for minorities,” said lead author Justin Michael Barnes, MD, from the department of radiation oncology at Washington University in St. Louis, Mo. “It’s thought that some of the differences are related to impaired access to health care for minorities, which is related to social determinants of health. This includes socioeconomic factors, educational attainment, place of residence, as well as environmental stressors.

“Our data show that greater state welfare expenditures were associated with greater 5-year survival among Black patients and decreased Black–White disparities,” said Dr. Barnes. “I think these data are thought provoking, but they certainly aren’t the end. I see these data as a proof-of-concept project.”

Dr. Barnes reported the findings at a press conference held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, during which the study will be presented (Abstract 6509).
 

Improved 5-year survival in Black patients

For the study, Dr. Barnes and colleagues evaluated the association of 5-year overall survival and public welfare spending in 2,925,550 individuals aged 18 years and older who were diagnosed with cancer during the period 2007-2016. The cohort was drawn from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. In addition, annual state spending data were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau. The team examined survival outcomes by race and ethnicity as well as by cancer site. The investigators accounted for factors such as age, sex, metropolitan residence, state, county-level income and education, insurance status, cancer site, stage at diagnosis, and year of diagnosis.

Much of public welfare spending was related to Medicaid but also included programs that provide subsidy assistance for individuals, such as Supplemental Security Income.

As compared with White patients, the 5-year overall survival rate was 10.8% lower among non-Hispanic Black patients. But there was a 4.46% (P for interaction <.001) narrowing of the 5-year overall survival disparity in non-Hispanic Black patients in comparison with White patients per 10% increase in spending, or a 42% closure of the 10.8% disparity.

Regarding specific cancer types, increased public welfare spending was associated with a narrowing of the 5-year overall survival disparity between Black patients and non-Hispanic White patients for the following cancers: breast (a 6.15% survival increase for Black patients led to a 39% closing of the disparity), cervix (a 11.9% survival increase led to a 46% closing of the disparity), colorectum (a 4.42% survival increase led to a 48% closing of the disparity), head and neck (a 9.41% survival increase led to a 38% closing of the disparity), liver (a 7.02% survival increase led to a 49% closing of the disparity), ovary (an 8.95% survival increase led to a 41% closing of the disparity), bladder (an 8.18% survival increase led to a 44% closing of the disparity), and uterus (a 14.1% survival increase led to a 40% closing of the disparity).

“Some type of public welfare seems to be helping improve oncologic outcomes for some of our most socioeconomically at-risk patients, but we don’t know the specifics,” Dr. Barnes concluded. “Additional work is needed to identify the most influential public health expenditures. If we can do this, we can more rigorously evaluate state-level policies and their association with cancer outcomes.”
 

Public welfare improves outcomes

Weighing in on the data, Sarah P. Cate, MD, director, Special Surveillance and Breast Program, Mount Sinai Health System, New York, noted that racial disparities have been identified in many areas of health care and with respect to many diseases. “In the world of oncology, time to diagnosis and treatment significantly impacts overall survival,” she told this news organization. “Many studies are currently underway to investigate why certain ethnic groups have worse cancer outcomes.”

This study is important, she noted, in that it “highlights a discrete source of correcting these disparities in a large group of patients. Obviously there are multiple barriers to care, but increased public welfare spending in oncology should decrease some of these disparities.”

Julie R. Gralow, MD, ASCO’s chief medical officer and executive vice president, commented that it is known that state public welfare spending can mitigate structural racism and at least partially address social determinants of health, such as financial stability, education, place of residence, and insurance status. “This research found that states that increased their public health spending improved overall survival in Black patients with a variety of solid tumors and also resulted in a decrease in racial disparities in survival,” she said. “This important data provides clear support for the benefits of investment in public welfare spending at the state level, including Medicaid expansion.”

The study did not receive funding. Dr. Barnes and Dr. Cate have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Gralow has relationships with Genentech, AstraZeneca Hexal, Puma BioTechnology, Roche, Novartis, Seagen, and Genomic Health.

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

Non-Hispanic White children were more likely to receive diagnostic imaging at children’s hospitals’ emergency departments across the United States than were Hispanic children and non-Hispanic Black children, according to a large study published in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers found that, the more the percentage of children from minority groups cared for by a hospital increased, the wider the imaging gap between those children and non-Hispanic White children.

The cross-sectional study, led by Margaret E. Samuels-Kalow, MD, MPhil, MSHP, with the department of emergency medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, included 38 children’s hospitals and more than 12 million ED visits.

“These findings emphasize the urgent need for interventions at the hospital level to improve equity in imaging in pediatric emergency medicine,” the authors write.

Patients included in the study were younger than 18 and visited an ED from January 2016 through December 2019. Data were pulled from the Pediatric Health Information System.

Of the more than 12 million visits in this study, 3.5 million (28.7%) involved at least one diagnostic imaging test.

Diagnostic imaging was performed in 1.5 million visits (34.2%) for non-Hispanic White children; 790,961 (24.6%) for non-Hispanic Black children; and 907,222 (26.1%) for Hispanic children (P < .001).

Non-Hispanic Black children were consistently less likely to get diagnostic imaging than non-Hispanic White counterparts at every hospital in the study, no matter the imaging modality: radiography, ultrasonography, computed tomography, or magnetic resonance imaging.

Hispanic patients were generally less likely to get imaging than non-Hispanic White patients, though results were less consistent for ultrasound and MRI.

In a sensitivity analysis, when looking at imaging from patients’ first visit across the study cohort, non-Hispanic Black children were significantly less likely to get imaging than non-Hispanic White children (adjusted odds ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.79).

“This remained significant even after adjustment for a priori specified confounders including hospital propensity to image,” the authors write.

Authors acknowledge that it is possible that some of the differences may be attributable to the patient mix regarding severity of cases or indications for imaging by hospital, but they note that all models were adjusted for diagnosis-related group and other potential confounders.

This study did not assess whether one group is being overtested. Researchers also note that higher rates of imaging do not necessarily indicate higher quality of care.

However, the authors note, previous research has suggested overtesting of non-Hispanic White patients for head CT and chest pain, as well as patterns of overtreatment of non-Hispanic White patients who have bronchiolitis or viral upper respiratory tract infections.

Medell Briggs-Malonson, MD, MPH, chief of health equity, diversity and inclusion for the University of California, Los Angeles, Hospital and Clinic System, who was not part of the study, said in an interview “this all rings true.”

“This is not the first study we have had in either the pediatric or adult populations that shows disparate levels of care as well as health outcomes. Now we are starting to be able to measure it,” she said.

This study is further evidence of medical racism, she says, and highlights that it’s not the hospital choice or the insurance type affecting the numbers, she said.

“When you control for those factors, it looks to be it’s only due to race and that’s because of the very deep levels of implicit bias as well as explicit bias that we still have in our health systems and even in our providers,” said Dr. Briggs-Malonson, who is also an associate professor of emergency medicine at UCLA. “It’s incredibly important to identify and immediately address.”

What can be done?

Changing these patterns starts with knowing the numbers, the authors write.

“Hospitals should measure their own differences in imaging rates and increase awareness of existing areas of differential treatment as a starting point for improvement,” Dr. Samuels-Kalow and coauthors say.

Dr. Briggs-Malonson added that guidelines are very clear about when children should get imaging. Adhering to evidence-based guidelines can help avoid variations in care from external factors.

“If children are not receiving the absolute best comprehensive evaluation in the emergency department that they deserve, we can miss many different illnesses, which can lead to worse outcomes,” she noted.

As for what might motivate lack of imaging, Dr. Briggs-Malonson pointed to longstanding trends of providers thinking complaints raised by minority patients may not be as severe as they report. Conversely, in caring for White patients there may be a feeling that more tests and imaging may be better out of more fear of missing something, she said.

At UCLA, she says, dashboards have been developed to track statistics on care by age, race, ethnicity, language, insurance type, etc., though not specifically in pediatric imaging, to assess and address any care inequities.

Summer L. Kaplan, MD, MS, director of emergency radiology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who also was not part of the study, said the finding of racial disparities in pediatric ED imaging provides evidence that gaps still exist in providing the best care to all children and families seeking emergency care.

“However, it is important to recognize that more imaging does not equal better care,” she said. “More imaging may be associated with unnecessary, low-value tests that may add radiation and other risks but do not improve care.”

She said higher rates of imaging may occur when patients present early in the course of a disease, when the differential diagnosis remains broad.

If families have delayed seeking care because of time constraints, transportation problems, cost of care, or mistrust of the health system, children may present later in the course of a disease and require less imaging for a diagnosis, she explained.

“This paper offers a valuable look at the inequities that exist in pediatric emergency imaging use, and further research will be essential to understand and address the causes of these differences,” Dr. Kaplan said.

A coauthor reported compensation as a member of a Medical Review Committee for Highmark. Other coauthors reported grants from the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality outside the submitted work. Dr. Briggs-Malonson and Dr. Kaplan reported no relevant financial relationships.

Non-Hispanic White children were more likely to receive diagnostic imaging at children’s hospitals’ emergency departments across the United States than were Hispanic children and non-Hispanic Black children, according to a large study published in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers found that, the more the percentage of children from minority groups cared for by a hospital increased, the wider the imaging gap between those children and non-Hispanic White children.

The cross-sectional study, led by Margaret E. Samuels-Kalow, MD, MPhil, MSHP, with the department of emergency medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, included 38 children’s hospitals and more than 12 million ED visits.

“These findings emphasize the urgent need for interventions at the hospital level to improve equity in imaging in pediatric emergency medicine,” the authors write.

Patients included in the study were younger than 18 and visited an ED from January 2016 through December 2019. Data were pulled from the Pediatric Health Information System.

Of the more than 12 million visits in this study, 3.5 million (28.7%) involved at least one diagnostic imaging test.

Diagnostic imaging was performed in 1.5 million visits (34.2%) for non-Hispanic White children; 790,961 (24.6%) for non-Hispanic Black children; and 907,222 (26.1%) for Hispanic children (P < .001).

Non-Hispanic Black children were consistently less likely to get diagnostic imaging than non-Hispanic White counterparts at every hospital in the study, no matter the imaging modality: radiography, ultrasonography, computed tomography, or magnetic resonance imaging.

Hispanic patients were generally less likely to get imaging than non-Hispanic White patients, though results were less consistent for ultrasound and MRI.

In a sensitivity analysis, when looking at imaging from patients’ first visit across the study cohort, non-Hispanic Black children were significantly less likely to get imaging than non-Hispanic White children (adjusted odds ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.79).

“This remained significant even after adjustment for a priori specified confounders including hospital propensity to image,” the authors write.

Authors acknowledge that it is possible that some of the differences may be attributable to the patient mix regarding severity of cases or indications for imaging by hospital, but they note that all models were adjusted for diagnosis-related group and other potential confounders.

This study did not assess whether one group is being overtested. Researchers also note that higher rates of imaging do not necessarily indicate higher quality of care.

However, the authors note, previous research has suggested overtesting of non-Hispanic White patients for head CT and chest pain, as well as patterns of overtreatment of non-Hispanic White patients who have bronchiolitis or viral upper respiratory tract infections.

Medell Briggs-Malonson, MD, MPH, chief of health equity, diversity and inclusion for the University of California, Los Angeles, Hospital and Clinic System, who was not part of the study, said in an interview “this all rings true.”

“This is not the first study we have had in either the pediatric or adult populations that shows disparate levels of care as well as health outcomes. Now we are starting to be able to measure it,” she said.

This study is further evidence of medical racism, she says, and highlights that it’s not the hospital choice or the insurance type affecting the numbers, she said.

“When you control for those factors, it looks to be it’s only due to race and that’s because of the very deep levels of implicit bias as well as explicit bias that we still have in our health systems and even in our providers,” said Dr. Briggs-Malonson, who is also an associate professor of emergency medicine at UCLA. “It’s incredibly important to identify and immediately address.”

What can be done?

Changing these patterns starts with knowing the numbers, the authors write.

“Hospitals should measure their own differences in imaging rates and increase awareness of existing areas of differential treatment as a starting point for improvement,” Dr. Samuels-Kalow and coauthors say.

Dr. Briggs-Malonson added that guidelines are very clear about when children should get imaging. Adhering to evidence-based guidelines can help avoid variations in care from external factors.

“If children are not receiving the absolute best comprehensive evaluation in the emergency department that they deserve, we can miss many different illnesses, which can lead to worse outcomes,” she noted.

As for what might motivate lack of imaging, Dr. Briggs-Malonson pointed to longstanding trends of providers thinking complaints raised by minority patients may not be as severe as they report. Conversely, in caring for White patients there may be a feeling that more tests and imaging may be better out of more fear of missing something, she said.

At UCLA, she says, dashboards have been developed to track statistics on care by age, race, ethnicity, language, insurance type, etc., though not specifically in pediatric imaging, to assess and address any care inequities.

Summer L. Kaplan, MD, MS, director of emergency radiology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who also was not part of the study, said the finding of racial disparities in pediatric ED imaging provides evidence that gaps still exist in providing the best care to all children and families seeking emergency care.

“However, it is important to recognize that more imaging does not equal better care,” she said. “More imaging may be associated with unnecessary, low-value tests that may add radiation and other risks but do not improve care.”

She said higher rates of imaging may occur when patients present early in the course of a disease, when the differential diagnosis remains broad.

If families have delayed seeking care because of time constraints, transportation problems, cost of care, or mistrust of the health system, children may present later in the course of a disease and require less imaging for a diagnosis, she explained.

“This paper offers a valuable look at the inequities that exist in pediatric emergency imaging use, and further research will be essential to understand and address the causes of these differences,” Dr. Kaplan said.

A coauthor reported compensation as a member of a Medical Review Committee for Highmark. Other coauthors reported grants from the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality outside the submitted work. Dr. Briggs-Malonson and Dr. Kaplan reported no relevant financial relationships.

Non-Hispanic White children were more likely to receive diagnostic imaging at children’s hospitals’ emergency departments across the United States than were Hispanic children and non-Hispanic Black children, according to a large study published in JAMA Network Open.

Researchers found that, the more the percentage of children from minority groups cared for by a hospital increased, the wider the imaging gap between those children and non-Hispanic White children.

The cross-sectional study, led by Margaret E. Samuels-Kalow, MD, MPhil, MSHP, with the department of emergency medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, included 38 children’s hospitals and more than 12 million ED visits.

“These findings emphasize the urgent need for interventions at the hospital level to improve equity in imaging in pediatric emergency medicine,” the authors write.

Patients included in the study were younger than 18 and visited an ED from January 2016 through December 2019. Data were pulled from the Pediatric Health Information System.

Of the more than 12 million visits in this study, 3.5 million (28.7%) involved at least one diagnostic imaging test.

Diagnostic imaging was performed in 1.5 million visits (34.2%) for non-Hispanic White children; 790,961 (24.6%) for non-Hispanic Black children; and 907,222 (26.1%) for Hispanic children (P < .001).

Non-Hispanic Black children were consistently less likely to get diagnostic imaging than non-Hispanic White counterparts at every hospital in the study, no matter the imaging modality: radiography, ultrasonography, computed tomography, or magnetic resonance imaging.

Hispanic patients were generally less likely to get imaging than non-Hispanic White patients, though results were less consistent for ultrasound and MRI.

In a sensitivity analysis, when looking at imaging from patients’ first visit across the study cohort, non-Hispanic Black children were significantly less likely to get imaging than non-Hispanic White children (adjusted odds ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.79).

“This remained significant even after adjustment for a priori specified confounders including hospital propensity to image,” the authors write.

Authors acknowledge that it is possible that some of the differences may be attributable to the patient mix regarding severity of cases or indications for imaging by hospital, but they note that all models were adjusted for diagnosis-related group and other potential confounders.

This study did not assess whether one group is being overtested. Researchers also note that higher rates of imaging do not necessarily indicate higher quality of care.

However, the authors note, previous research has suggested overtesting of non-Hispanic White patients for head CT and chest pain, as well as patterns of overtreatment of non-Hispanic White patients who have bronchiolitis or viral upper respiratory tract infections.

Medell Briggs-Malonson, MD, MPH, chief of health equity, diversity and inclusion for the University of California, Los Angeles, Hospital and Clinic System, who was not part of the study, said in an interview “this all rings true.”

“This is not the first study we have had in either the pediatric or adult populations that shows disparate levels of care as well as health outcomes. Now we are starting to be able to measure it,” she said.

This study is further evidence of medical racism, she says, and highlights that it’s not the hospital choice or the insurance type affecting the numbers, she said.

“When you control for those factors, it looks to be it’s only due to race and that’s because of the very deep levels of implicit bias as well as explicit bias that we still have in our health systems and even in our providers,” said Dr. Briggs-Malonson, who is also an associate professor of emergency medicine at UCLA. “It’s incredibly important to identify and immediately address.”

What can be done?

Changing these patterns starts with knowing the numbers, the authors write.

“Hospitals should measure their own differences in imaging rates and increase awareness of existing areas of differential treatment as a starting point for improvement,” Dr. Samuels-Kalow and coauthors say.

Dr. Briggs-Malonson added that guidelines are very clear about when children should get imaging. Adhering to evidence-based guidelines can help avoid variations in care from external factors.

“If children are not receiving the absolute best comprehensive evaluation in the emergency department that they deserve, we can miss many different illnesses, which can lead to worse outcomes,” she noted.

As for what might motivate lack of imaging, Dr. Briggs-Malonson pointed to longstanding trends of providers thinking complaints raised by minority patients may not be as severe as they report. Conversely, in caring for White patients there may be a feeling that more tests and imaging may be better out of more fear of missing something, she said.

At UCLA, she says, dashboards have been developed to track statistics on care by age, race, ethnicity, language, insurance type, etc., though not specifically in pediatric imaging, to assess and address any care inequities.

Summer L. Kaplan, MD, MS, director of emergency radiology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, who also was not part of the study, said the finding of racial disparities in pediatric ED imaging provides evidence that gaps still exist in providing the best care to all children and families seeking emergency care.

“However, it is important to recognize that more imaging does not equal better care,” she said. “More imaging may be associated with unnecessary, low-value tests that may add radiation and other risks but do not improve care.”

She said higher rates of imaging may occur when patients present early in the course of a disease, when the differential diagnosis remains broad.

If families have delayed seeking care because of time constraints, transportation problems, cost of care, or mistrust of the health system, children may present later in the course of a disease and require less imaging for a diagnosis, she explained.

“This paper offers a valuable look at the inequities that exist in pediatric emergency imaging use, and further research will be essential to understand and address the causes of these differences,” Dr. Kaplan said.

A coauthor reported compensation as a member of a Medical Review Committee for Highmark. Other coauthors reported grants from the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality outside the submitted work. Dr. Briggs-Malonson and Dr. Kaplan reported no relevant financial relationships.

Ramadan is one of the obligatory pillars in Islam during which healthy Muslims are required to fast from dawn until sunset every day for 1 month. There are an estimated 3.45 million Muslims in the United States, and this population will continue to grow by 100,000 per year.¹ With the increased growth of the Muslim population, it is important for clinicians to be aware of how patients of Muslim faith are affected during Ramadan. In this article, we explore the potential risks, as well as the benefits, the month of Ramadan brings to patients. We will also explain how being religiously aware is necessary to provide optimal care for these individuals.

For some patients, fasting may pose risks

Similar to other communities in the United States, individuals who are Muslim experience mood disorders, anxiety disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, schizophrenia, substance use disorders, and other psychiatric illnesses.² During the month of Ramadan, Muslims are to abstain completely from eating and drinking from dawn until sunset. This includes medications as well as food and drink.

Due to these circumstances, patients will often change the timing, frequency, and dosing of their medications to allow them to fast. One study found 60% of Muslims made medication adjustments during Ramadan without seeking medical advice.³ It is possible that such alterations may be detrimental. During Ramadan, some Muslims wake up early in the morning to eat a pre-dawn meal, and often go back to sleep. This has been reported to cause a delay in sleep-wake times and to reduce rapid eye movement sleep.⁴ These circadian rhythm changes can be detrimental to patients with bipolar disorder. One study found higher rates of relapse to depression and mania in patients with bipolar disorder who were fasting during Ramadan.⁵ Circadian rhythm disturbances also may worsen depression.⁶ Another point of concern is patients with eating disorders. One small case series (N = 6) found that fasting during Ramadan exacerbated symptoms in patients with eating disorders.⁷

Another concern is that dehydration while fasting can lead to lithium toxicity. However, one study found lithium levels remained stable while fasting for 10 to 12 hours.⁵ Another showed that changing lithium dosing from twice a day to once a day allowed for easier administration without causing a subtherapeutic change in blood lithium levels.⁸

The practice also may have benefits for mental health

For many Muslims, Ramadan is the best time of the year, where they reconnect with their religion and experience the utmost spiritual growth. Studies have shown that the incidence of suicide is lowest during Ramadan compared to other months.⁹ A study of older men found that intermittent fasting and calorie restriction (not during Ramadan) resulted in decreases in tension, confusion, anger, and mood disturbance.¹⁰ Another study found that fasting during Ramadan had a positive impact on depression, anxiety, stress, and cognitive function.¹¹

Clinical considerations

To provide the best care for Muslim patients during Ramadan, clinicians should take a holistic approach and take all factors into consideration. It is common for circadian rhythm disruptions to exacerbate mood disorders, so encourage patients to maintain healthy sleep hygiene to their best ability during this month. Another important consideration is medication timing and dosing.¹² For patients prescribed a medication that typically is taken twice a day, determine if this dosing can be changed to once a day, or if both doses can be taken when it is permissible to eat (sunset to dawn). For medications that are absorbed with food, consider how these medications might be adjusted and maintained while a patient is fasting. Some medications may be sedating or activating, so the timing of administration may need to be adjusted to meet the patient’s needs. Lastly, keep in mind that certain medications can have withdrawal effects, and the likelihood of this occurring while a patient is fasting.

One vital point is that if a patient is at high risk of clinically decompensating due to fasting or medication adjustments or discontinuation, advise them to not fast. Muslims with physical or mental illnesses are excused from fasting. Bear in mind that because Ramadan is meant to be a month of heightened spirituality, many Muslims will prefer to fast.

Ramadan is one of the obligatory pillars in Islam during which healthy Muslims are required to fast from dawn until sunset every day for 1 month. There are an estimated 3.45 million Muslims in the United States, and this population will continue to grow by 100,000 per year.¹ With the increased growth of the Muslim population, it is important for clinicians to be aware of how patients of Muslim faith are affected during Ramadan. In this article, we explore the potential risks, as well as the benefits, the month of Ramadan brings to patients. We will also explain how being religiously aware is necessary to provide optimal care for these individuals.

For some patients, fasting may pose risks

Similar to other communities in the United States, individuals who are Muslim experience mood disorders, anxiety disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, schizophrenia, substance use disorders, and other psychiatric illnesses.² During the month of Ramadan, Muslims are to abstain completely from eating and drinking from dawn until sunset. This includes medications as well as food and drink.

Due to these circumstances, patients will often change the timing, frequency, and dosing of their medications to allow them to fast. One study found 60% of Muslims made medication adjustments during Ramadan without seeking medical advice.³ It is possible that such alterations may be detrimental. During Ramadan, some Muslims wake up early in the morning to eat a pre-dawn meal, and often go back to sleep. This has been reported to cause a delay in sleep-wake times and to reduce rapid eye movement sleep.⁴ These circadian rhythm changes can be detrimental to patients with bipolar disorder. One study found higher rates of relapse to depression and mania in patients with bipolar disorder who were fasting during Ramadan.⁵ Circadian rhythm disturbances also may worsen depression.⁶ Another point of concern is patients with eating disorders. One small case series (N = 6) found that fasting during Ramadan exacerbated symptoms in patients with eating disorders.⁷

Another concern is that dehydration while fasting can lead to lithium toxicity. However, one study found lithium levels remained stable while fasting for 10 to 12 hours.⁵ Another showed that changing lithium dosing from twice a day to once a day allowed for easier administration without causing a subtherapeutic change in blood lithium levels.⁸

The practice also may have benefits for mental health

For many Muslims, Ramadan is the best time of the year, where they reconnect with their religion and experience the utmost spiritual growth. Studies have shown that the incidence of suicide is lowest during Ramadan compared to other months.⁹ A study of older men found that intermittent fasting and calorie restriction (not during Ramadan) resulted in decreases in tension, confusion, anger, and mood disturbance.¹⁰ Another study found that fasting during Ramadan had a positive impact on depression, anxiety, stress, and cognitive function.¹¹

Clinical considerations

To provide the best care for Muslim patients during Ramadan, clinicians should take a holistic approach and take all factors into consideration. It is common for circadian rhythm disruptions to exacerbate mood disorders, so encourage patients to maintain healthy sleep hygiene to their best ability during this month. Another important consideration is medication timing and dosing.¹² For patients prescribed a medication that typically is taken twice a day, determine if this dosing can be changed to once a day, or if both doses can be taken when it is permissible to eat (sunset to dawn). For medications that are absorbed with food, consider how these medications might be adjusted and maintained while a patient is fasting. Some medications may be sedating or activating, so the timing of administration may need to be adjusted to meet the patient’s needs. Lastly, keep in mind that certain medications can have withdrawal effects, and the likelihood of this occurring while a patient is fasting.

One vital point is that if a patient is at high risk of clinically decompensating due to fasting or medication adjustments or discontinuation, advise them to not fast. Muslims with physical or mental illnesses are excused from fasting. Bear in mind that because Ramadan is meant to be a month of heightened spirituality, many Muslims will prefer to fast.

Ramadan is one of the obligatory pillars in Islam during which healthy Muslims are required to fast from dawn until sunset every day for 1 month. There are an estimated 3.45 million Muslims in the United States, and this population will continue to grow by 100,000 per year.¹ With the increased growth of the Muslim population, it is important for clinicians to be aware of how patients of Muslim faith are affected during Ramadan. In this article, we explore the potential risks, as well as the benefits, the month of Ramadan brings to patients. We will also explain how being religiously aware is necessary to provide optimal care for these individuals.

For some patients, fasting may pose risks

Similar to other communities in the United States, individuals who are Muslim experience mood disorders, anxiety disorders, posttraumatic stress disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, schizophrenia, substance use disorders, and other psychiatric illnesses.² During the month of Ramadan, Muslims are to abstain completely from eating and drinking from dawn until sunset. This includes medications as well as food and drink.

Due to these circumstances, patients will often change the timing, frequency, and dosing of their medications to allow them to fast. One study found 60% of Muslims made medication adjustments during Ramadan without seeking medical advice.³ It is possible that such alterations may be detrimental. During Ramadan, some Muslims wake up early in the morning to eat a pre-dawn meal, and often go back to sleep. This has been reported to cause a delay in sleep-wake times and to reduce rapid eye movement sleep.⁴ These circadian rhythm changes can be detrimental to patients with bipolar disorder. One study found higher rates of relapse to depression and mania in patients with bipolar disorder who were fasting during Ramadan.⁵ Circadian rhythm disturbances also may worsen depression.⁶ Another point of concern is patients with eating disorders. One small case series (N = 6) found that fasting during Ramadan exacerbated symptoms in patients with eating disorders.⁷

Another concern is that dehydration while fasting can lead to lithium toxicity. However, one study found lithium levels remained stable while fasting for 10 to 12 hours.⁵ Another showed that changing lithium dosing from twice a day to once a day allowed for easier administration without causing a subtherapeutic change in blood lithium levels.⁸

The practice also may have benefits for mental health

For many Muslims, Ramadan is the best time of the year, where they reconnect with their religion and experience the utmost spiritual growth. Studies have shown that the incidence of suicide is lowest during Ramadan compared to other months.⁹ A study of older men found that intermittent fasting and calorie restriction (not during Ramadan) resulted in decreases in tension, confusion, anger, and mood disturbance.¹⁰ Another study found that fasting during Ramadan had a positive impact on depression, anxiety, stress, and cognitive function.¹¹

Clinical considerations

To provide the best care for Muslim patients during Ramadan, clinicians should take a holistic approach and take all factors into consideration. It is common for circadian rhythm disruptions to exacerbate mood disorders, so encourage patients to maintain healthy sleep hygiene to their best ability during this month. Another important consideration is medication timing and dosing.¹² For patients prescribed a medication that typically is taken twice a day, determine if this dosing can be changed to once a day, or if both doses can be taken when it is permissible to eat (sunset to dawn). For medications that are absorbed with food, consider how these medications might be adjusted and maintained while a patient is fasting. Some medications may be sedating or activating, so the timing of administration may need to be adjusted to meet the patient’s needs. Lastly, keep in mind that certain medications can have withdrawal effects, and the likelihood of this occurring while a patient is fasting.

One vital point is that if a patient is at high risk of clinically decompensating due to fasting or medication adjustments or discontinuation, advise them to not fast. Muslims with physical or mental illnesses are excused from fasting. Bear in mind that because Ramadan is meant to be a month of heightened spirituality, many Muslims will prefer to fast.

A cohort study has found increases in mortality rates among women with non-endometrioid uterine carcinoma, despite incident rates that have stabilized. After correction with hysterectomy, mortality risk was about doubled for Black women, compared with White women, and these results could not be explained by differences in cancer subtype or cancer stage at diagnosis. Non-endometroid uterine carcinoma represents 15%-20% of uterine cancers diagnosed and carries a worse prognosis.

“We do not know why non-endometrioid subtypes are disproportionately increasing among all women, nor do we understand why they are so much more common among non-Hispanic Black women. We need more research to identify risk factors and exposures more specifically associated with non-endometrioid cancers to better understand the strong increases in this subtype among all women and the particularly high rates and recent increases in non-Hispanic black women,” said lead author Megan Clarke, PhD, MHS, the study’s lead author and a cancer epidemiologist with the National Cancer Institute.

The study was published online in JAMA Oncology.

“Physicians should be aware that both incidence and mortality rates of non-endometrioid cancers are on the rise. Because these subtypes are rarer than endometrioid uterine cancers, physicians may be less familiar with diagnosing and treating these aggressive types of cancers. Increasing awareness among clinicians and patients regarding the signs and symptoms of uterine cancer (such as postmenopausal bleeding) and the differences in histologic subtypes among racial and ethnic groups may promote earlier diagnosis and timely referral to appropriate treatment,” Dr. Clarke said.

Previous studies based on death certificates found increased mortality, especially in Black women, but they were limited by an inability to link mortality to tumor characteristics. To address this, the researchers linked mortality data to records of 208,587 women diagnosed with uterine cancer between 2000 and 2017, drawn from the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.

Black women represented 9.7% of cases, but they suffered 17.7% of uterine cancer deaths. Overall, mortality from uterine corpus cancer increased by 1.8% per year (95% confidence interval, 1.5%-2.9%). Non-endometroid cancers increased at 2.7% per year (95% CI, 1.8%-3.6%), and this was higher in Asian (3.4%; 95% CI, 0.3%-6.6%), Black (3.5%; 95% CI, 2.2%-4.9%), Hispanic (6.7%; 95% CI, 1.9%-11.8%), and White women (1.5%; 95% CI, 0.6%-2.4%).

Mortality increased 1.8% per year overall for uterine cancer and 2.7% per year for non-endometrioid uterine cancer. There was no increase in mortality seen in endometrioid cancers.

“The concerning rise in deaths from non-endometrioid cancers warrants clinical attention. Our findings suggest that there may be several factors contributing to racial disparities in uterine cancer mortality. Higher mortality rates among non-Hispanic Black women are partly attributable to higher incidence of tumors with aggressive subtypes and advanced stages. However, non-Hispanic Black women in our study who were diagnosed with less aggressive subtypes and early-stage disease also had the highest mortality rates,” said Dr. Clarke.

That suggests that inequities of treatment and high-quality care may be at least partly to blame, since those factors are known to contribute to differences in uterine cancer outcomes. “Other factors including comorbidities, health care facility characteristics, treatment preferences and adherence, patient and provider communication, provider bias, discrimination and structural racism, and potential biologic differences in response to treatment need to be better understood in terms of how they influence racial disparities,” Dr. Clarke said.

Dr. Clarke reported no relevant disclosures.

A cohort study has found increases in mortality rates among women with non-endometrioid uterine carcinoma, despite incident rates that have stabilized. After correction with hysterectomy, mortality risk was about doubled for Black women, compared with White women, and these results could not be explained by differences in cancer subtype or cancer stage at diagnosis. Non-endometroid uterine carcinoma represents 15%-20% of uterine cancers diagnosed and carries a worse prognosis.

“We do not know why non-endometrioid subtypes are disproportionately increasing among all women, nor do we understand why they are so much more common among non-Hispanic Black women. We need more research to identify risk factors and exposures more specifically associated with non-endometrioid cancers to better understand the strong increases in this subtype among all women and the particularly high rates and recent increases in non-Hispanic black women,” said lead author Megan Clarke, PhD, MHS, the study’s lead author and a cancer epidemiologist with the National Cancer Institute.

The study was published online in JAMA Oncology.

“Physicians should be aware that both incidence and mortality rates of non-endometrioid cancers are on the rise. Because these subtypes are rarer than endometrioid uterine cancers, physicians may be less familiar with diagnosing and treating these aggressive types of cancers. Increasing awareness among clinicians and patients regarding the signs and symptoms of uterine cancer (such as postmenopausal bleeding) and the differences in histologic subtypes among racial and ethnic groups may promote earlier diagnosis and timely referral to appropriate treatment,” Dr. Clarke said.

Previous studies based on death certificates found increased mortality, especially in Black women, but they were limited by an inability to link mortality to tumor characteristics. To address this, the researchers linked mortality data to records of 208,587 women diagnosed with uterine cancer between 2000 and 2017, drawn from the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.

Black women represented 9.7% of cases, but they suffered 17.7% of uterine cancer deaths. Overall, mortality from uterine corpus cancer increased by 1.8% per year (95% confidence interval, 1.5%-2.9%). Non-endometroid cancers increased at 2.7% per year (95% CI, 1.8%-3.6%), and this was higher in Asian (3.4%; 95% CI, 0.3%-6.6%), Black (3.5%; 95% CI, 2.2%-4.9%), Hispanic (6.7%; 95% CI, 1.9%-11.8%), and White women (1.5%; 95% CI, 0.6%-2.4%).

Mortality increased 1.8% per year overall for uterine cancer and 2.7% per year for non-endometrioid uterine cancer. There was no increase in mortality seen in endometrioid cancers.

“The concerning rise in deaths from non-endometrioid cancers warrants clinical attention. Our findings suggest that there may be several factors contributing to racial disparities in uterine cancer mortality. Higher mortality rates among non-Hispanic Black women are partly attributable to higher incidence of tumors with aggressive subtypes and advanced stages. However, non-Hispanic Black women in our study who were diagnosed with less aggressive subtypes and early-stage disease also had the highest mortality rates,” said Dr. Clarke.

That suggests that inequities of treatment and high-quality care may be at least partly to blame, since those factors are known to contribute to differences in uterine cancer outcomes. “Other factors including comorbidities, health care facility characteristics, treatment preferences and adherence, patient and provider communication, provider bias, discrimination and structural racism, and potential biologic differences in response to treatment need to be better understood in terms of how they influence racial disparities,” Dr. Clarke said.

Dr. Clarke reported no relevant disclosures.

A cohort study has found increases in mortality rates among women with non-endometrioid uterine carcinoma, despite incident rates that have stabilized. After correction with hysterectomy, mortality risk was about doubled for Black women, compared with White women, and these results could not be explained by differences in cancer subtype or cancer stage at diagnosis. Non-endometroid uterine carcinoma represents 15%-20% of uterine cancers diagnosed and carries a worse prognosis.

“We do not know why non-endometrioid subtypes are disproportionately increasing among all women, nor do we understand why they are so much more common among non-Hispanic Black women. We need more research to identify risk factors and exposures more specifically associated with non-endometrioid cancers to better understand the strong increases in this subtype among all women and the particularly high rates and recent increases in non-Hispanic black women,” said lead author Megan Clarke, PhD, MHS, the study’s lead author and a cancer epidemiologist with the National Cancer Institute.

The study was published online in JAMA Oncology.

“Physicians should be aware that both incidence and mortality rates of non-endometrioid cancers are on the rise. Because these subtypes are rarer than endometrioid uterine cancers, physicians may be less familiar with diagnosing and treating these aggressive types of cancers. Increasing awareness among clinicians and patients regarding the signs and symptoms of uterine cancer (such as postmenopausal bleeding) and the differences in histologic subtypes among racial and ethnic groups may promote earlier diagnosis and timely referral to appropriate treatment,” Dr. Clarke said.

Previous studies based on death certificates found increased mortality, especially in Black women, but they were limited by an inability to link mortality to tumor characteristics. To address this, the researchers linked mortality data to records of 208,587 women diagnosed with uterine cancer between 2000 and 2017, drawn from the U.S. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program.

Black women represented 9.7% of cases, but they suffered 17.7% of uterine cancer deaths. Overall, mortality from uterine corpus cancer increased by 1.8% per year (95% confidence interval, 1.5%-2.9%). Non-endometroid cancers increased at 2.7% per year (95% CI, 1.8%-3.6%), and this was higher in Asian (3.4%; 95% CI, 0.3%-6.6%), Black (3.5%; 95% CI, 2.2%-4.9%), Hispanic (6.7%; 95% CI, 1.9%-11.8%), and White women (1.5%; 95% CI, 0.6%-2.4%).

Mortality increased 1.8% per year overall for uterine cancer and 2.7% per year for non-endometrioid uterine cancer. There was no increase in mortality seen in endometrioid cancers.

“The concerning rise in deaths from non-endometrioid cancers warrants clinical attention. Our findings suggest that there may be several factors contributing to racial disparities in uterine cancer mortality. Higher mortality rates among non-Hispanic Black women are partly attributable to higher incidence of tumors with aggressive subtypes and advanced stages. However, non-Hispanic Black women in our study who were diagnosed with less aggressive subtypes and early-stage disease also had the highest mortality rates,” said Dr. Clarke.

That suggests that inequities of treatment and high-quality care may be at least partly to blame, since those factors are known to contribute to differences in uterine cancer outcomes. “Other factors including comorbidities, health care facility characteristics, treatment preferences and adherence, patient and provider communication, provider bias, discrimination and structural racism, and potential biologic differences in response to treatment need to be better understood in terms of how they influence racial disparities,” Dr. Clarke said.

Dr. Clarke reported no relevant disclosures.

As Usha Lee McFarling has pointed out, the orthopedic surgeon specialty suffers from a gross underrepresentation of minorities and women, more severe than in other medical specialties. There are various reasons for this and a variety of possible paths toward improvement, but the “critical first step,” as American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons former president Kristy Weber, MD, told Ms. McFarling, “is changing the culture.”

“Changing the culture” is a large, diffuse aspiration. The AAOS has taken a number of steps toward that end, but they have not had much success. The two of us have identified others, which may help to move the needle. But any approach to resolving this stubbornly resistant racial and gender imbalance requires, first of all, an understanding of the psychological and neurobiological roots that underlie it.

Viewed from this perspective, the cultural barriers to inclusivity are similar to those that perpetuate inequitable health care. Both are driven by ingroup/outgroup prejudices that operate below the level of consciousness and are largely unseen.In our book Seeing Patients, we examined health disparities in six “non-mainstream” groups: African Americans, Hispanic Americans, women, gays and lesbians, and the elderly. We based our work initially on the Institute of Medicine’s breakthrough 2003 compendium, Unequal Treatment, which brought together a large number of studies on health care inequities that had appeared in a variety of journals over many years, but had never generated the critical mass necessary to create a call for action or even attract serious attention.

Unequal Treatment allowed us to understand that each medical specialty, right down the line – orthopedics, cardiology, gynecology, oncology, psychiatry, to name just a few – has its own grim history of discrimination. Our sense of the medical community in the 21st century led us away from the idea that overt bias is a significant cause of these still ongoing inequities. Most physicians, we believed, consider themselves to be, and strive to be, humane, compassionate, and egalitarian caregivers. The answer then seemed to be in subconscious rather than conscious bias.

As we reviewed the literature and strove to understand the primary drivers of the discrimination that systematically affects medical care, our attention was drawn to two critical and complementary mechanisms hard-wired into our systems for parsing and responding to our environment. The first was “stereotyping,” so often used as a pejorative, but which is, in fact, a primary and essential mental function.

“We all make stereotypic judgments,” says Rice University emeritus professor of psychology David Schneider in The Psychology of Stereotyping (page 419). “It happens with race. It happens with disability. It happens ... with gender, age, and physical appearance. ... That’s just the way it is: Our mental apparatus was designed to facilitate quick decisions based on category membership.”

Differentiation – social stereotyping in our case – is a given, then; it’s innate. The content of stereotyping – of Blacks, gays, women, and others – is not innate, but it is deeply ingrained by living in a given milieu and just as impossible to ignore.

The second mechanism we focused on was the neurobiology that underlies the impact of hidden emotion on rational thought. In his seminal book Descartes’ Error, neuroscientist Antonio Damasio spells out how the mind with its cognitive functions has evolved from the body and its emotional systems, and how they function together through neuro-networks that connect the mechanisms of feeling with the brain’s decision-making centers.

“Feelings,” Dr. Damasio tells us, “come first in [brain] development and retain a primacy that pervades our mental life.” The limbic system, the part of the brain that controls our emotional responses, constitutes a “frame of reference and has “a say on how the rest of the brain and cognition go about their business. [Its] influence is immense.” (Page 185)

Dr. Damasio was not focusing on medical decisions, but his insights, we felt, had great relevance for the question of unconscious bias in health care. Various studies by physicians and medical scientists do speak directly to the issue of how affective bias influences diagnosis and treatment. Pat Croskerry, director of Dalhousie University’s Clinical Research Center, argues that “cognitive and affective biases are known to compromise the decision-making” and that commonly “these are largely unconscious mistakes.”

Harvard’s Jerome Groopman, in his book How Doctors Think (page 40), writes that most incorrect diagnoses and treatments are “mistakes in thinking. And part of what causes these cognitive errors is our inner feelings, feelings we ... often don’t even recognize.” Cognition and emotion, Dr. Groopman insists, are inseparable. The emotional landscape sets the ground for decision-making.

The underlying mechanisms that enable health care prejudice are the same that enable interpersonal prejudice generally. Unseen and largely unrecognized, they affect ingroup/outgroup relations in every field of interaction, from bias in policing, to bias in housing, to bias in employment – “powerful and universal,” in Dr. Croskerry’s words, “affecting all walks of life.”

Decision-making about acceptance into orthopedic residencies is no exception. As Prof. Schneider says, “That’s just the way it is.”

What conclusions can be drawn from understanding the deep origins of subconscious bias that might improve the inclusion of minorities and women in orthopedics? A growing interest in “debiasing” in both the medical and cognitive psychology literature has identified or suggested methods of counteracting the prejudices we all harbor. (See Bhatti’s “Cognitive Bias in Clinical Practice,” Wilson and Brekke’s “Mental Contamination and Mental Correction: Unwanted Influences on Judgments and Evaluations,” and De Neys and colleagues’ “Feeling We’re Biased: Autonomic Arousal and Reasoning Conflict.”)

Many of these debiasing techniques have to do with education regarding cognitive functions, from training in decision-making processes to “time outs,” to checklists à la Atul Gawande, to other methods of metacognition.

But the two key prerequisites to all of these approaches are more or less self-evident. “For biases to be successfully addressed,” says Dr. Croskerry, “there needs to be ... awareness as well as the motivation for change.”

In a previous article we discussed the need to heighten awareness over and above current levels, and we have suggested steps toward that end. But awareness is only the first prerequisite; the second is motivation, and the depth of motivation necessary to create change in the business of orthopedic inclusion is, for all the AAOS’s efforts, simply inadequate – the result being that the culture does not change, or it changes so glacially as to be hardly noticeable.

Ms. McFarling noted in her interviews with orthopedic leaders, clinicians, residents, and medical students simmering feelings of frustration and perplexity. We would suggest that the frustration is because of the fact that, while there is a general awareness of the problem, there has simply not been the sufficiently determined motivation to fix it. “It is not neglected truths,” as religious scholar Gregory Dix put it, “but those that are at once fully acknowledged and frustrated of their proper expression, which take the most drastic psychological revenge.”

All of this leads back to the original problem posed by Prof. Weber, the former AAOS president: changing the orthopedic culture. The question of how cultures undergo transformation has been addressed by scholars across widely diverse fields (see, for example, Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Francis Fukuyama›s The End of History and the Last Man, and many others). But we are addressing here a narrow, well-defined slice of that problem. And our own explorations have led to the conclusion that the answer here lies in the issue of motivation – namely, how can a community that is aware of a problem be sufficiently motivated to fix it?

In Seeing Patients we argued that doctoring is the paradigmatic humanitarian profession, that physicians’ whole business is to care for and alleviate the suffering of other human beings. In this sense, doctors are the carriers of the humane ideal, which is congruent also with the noblest egalitarian principles of our life as a nation. We argued also that humanitarian medicine with its egalitarian mandate is a win-win-win proposition. The patient wins, the doctor wins, the society wins.

We think arguments like these should provide plenty of motivation for change. But in reality they are not sufficient. Our arguments and those of others along the same lines (see Louis Sullivan’s Breaking Ground and David McBride’s Caring for Equality) are directed for the most part at the better angels of our nature. They appeal to personal and political values: compassion, fairness, equality – powerful yet set against custom, habituation, and the daily pressures of practice, such arguments can and do easily come up short.

But when looked at straight on, with unblinking eyes, health care disparities should provoke other more forceful emotions: anger, to begin with; chagrin, consternation. Women receive fewer heart catheterizations and reperfusions than men. (See R. Di Cecco and colleagues’ “Is There a Clinically Significant Gender Bias in Post-Myocardial Infarction Pharmacological Management in the Older Population of a Primary Care Practice?” and Jneid and coworkers’ “Sex Difference in Medical Care and Early Death after Acute Myocardial Infarction.”) Because of this, more women die.

Blacks and Hispanics receive fewer analgesics for the excruciating pain of broken bones, and they are amputated more frequently than whites for identical peripheral arterial disease. (See Knox and colleagues’ “Ethnicity as a Risk Factor for Inadequate Emergency Department Analgesia,” Bonham’s “Race, Ethnicity and Pain Treatments: Striving to Understand the Causes and Solutions to the Disparities in Pain Treatments,” and Feinglass and coworkers’ “Racial Differences in Primary and Repeat Lower Extremity Amputation: Results From a Multihospital Study.”) They suffer accordingly.

The statistical accounting of these disparities masks the faces of pain and desperation – of disabilities, often of mortality. These are hard visceral truths that derive in part from the underrepresentation of minorities in various specialties, most pronounced in orthopedics. These are the truths that, when actually absorbed rather than just registered, have the capacity to transform awareness into motivation and in so doing can begin reshaping a culture that restricts minorities and women and makes orthopedics, as Ms. McFarling calls it, “the whitest specialty.”

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

As Usha Lee McFarling has pointed out, the orthopedic surgeon specialty suffers from a gross underrepresentation of minorities and women, more severe than in other medical specialties. There are various reasons for this and a variety of possible paths toward improvement, but the “critical first step,” as American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons former president Kristy Weber, MD, told Ms. McFarling, “is changing the culture.”

“Changing the culture” is a large, diffuse aspiration. The AAOS has taken a number of steps toward that end, but they have not had much success. The two of us have identified others, which may help to move the needle. But any approach to resolving this stubbornly resistant racial and gender imbalance requires, first of all, an understanding of the psychological and neurobiological roots that underlie it.

Viewed from this perspective, the cultural barriers to inclusivity are similar to those that perpetuate inequitable health care. Both are driven by ingroup/outgroup prejudices that operate below the level of consciousness and are largely unseen.In our book Seeing Patients, we examined health disparities in six “non-mainstream” groups: African Americans, Hispanic Americans, women, gays and lesbians, and the elderly. We based our work initially on the Institute of Medicine’s breakthrough 2003 compendium, Unequal Treatment, which brought together a large number of studies on health care inequities that had appeared in a variety of journals over many years, but had never generated the critical mass necessary to create a call for action or even attract serious attention.

Unequal Treatment allowed us to understand that each medical specialty, right down the line – orthopedics, cardiology, gynecology, oncology, psychiatry, to name just a few – has its own grim history of discrimination. Our sense of the medical community in the 21st century led us away from the idea that overt bias is a significant cause of these still ongoing inequities. Most physicians, we believed, consider themselves to be, and strive to be, humane, compassionate, and egalitarian caregivers. The answer then seemed to be in subconscious rather than conscious bias.

As we reviewed the literature and strove to understand the primary drivers of the discrimination that systematically affects medical care, our attention was drawn to two critical and complementary mechanisms hard-wired into our systems for parsing and responding to our environment. The first was “stereotyping,” so often used as a pejorative, but which is, in fact, a primary and essential mental function.

“We all make stereotypic judgments,” says Rice University emeritus professor of psychology David Schneider in The Psychology of Stereotyping (page 419). “It happens with race. It happens with disability. It happens ... with gender, age, and physical appearance. ... That’s just the way it is: Our mental apparatus was designed to facilitate quick decisions based on category membership.”

Differentiation – social stereotyping in our case – is a given, then; it’s innate. The content of stereotyping – of Blacks, gays, women, and others – is not innate, but it is deeply ingrained by living in a given milieu and just as impossible to ignore.

The second mechanism we focused on was the neurobiology that underlies the impact of hidden emotion on rational thought. In his seminal book Descartes’ Error, neuroscientist Antonio Damasio spells out how the mind with its cognitive functions has evolved from the body and its emotional systems, and how they function together through neuro-networks that connect the mechanisms of feeling with the brain’s decision-making centers.

“Feelings,” Dr. Damasio tells us, “come first in [brain] development and retain a primacy that pervades our mental life.” The limbic system, the part of the brain that controls our emotional responses, constitutes a “frame of reference and has “a say on how the rest of the brain and cognition go about their business. [Its] influence is immense.” (Page 185)

Dr. Damasio was not focusing on medical decisions, but his insights, we felt, had great relevance for the question of unconscious bias in health care. Various studies by physicians and medical scientists do speak directly to the issue of how affective bias influences diagnosis and treatment. Pat Croskerry, director of Dalhousie University’s Clinical Research Center, argues that “cognitive and affective biases are known to compromise the decision-making” and that commonly “these are largely unconscious mistakes.”

Harvard’s Jerome Groopman, in his book How Doctors Think (page 40), writes that most incorrect diagnoses and treatments are “mistakes in thinking. And part of what causes these cognitive errors is our inner feelings, feelings we ... often don’t even recognize.” Cognition and emotion, Dr. Groopman insists, are inseparable. The emotional landscape sets the ground for decision-making.

The underlying mechanisms that enable health care prejudice are the same that enable interpersonal prejudice generally. Unseen and largely unrecognized, they affect ingroup/outgroup relations in every field of interaction, from bias in policing, to bias in housing, to bias in employment – “powerful and universal,” in Dr. Croskerry’s words, “affecting all walks of life.”

Decision-making about acceptance into orthopedic residencies is no exception. As Prof. Schneider says, “That’s just the way it is.”

What conclusions can be drawn from understanding the deep origins of subconscious bias that might improve the inclusion of minorities and women in orthopedics? A growing interest in “debiasing” in both the medical and cognitive psychology literature has identified or suggested methods of counteracting the prejudices we all harbor. (See Bhatti’s “Cognitive Bias in Clinical Practice,” Wilson and Brekke’s “Mental Contamination and Mental Correction: Unwanted Influences on Judgments and Evaluations,” and De Neys and colleagues’ “Feeling We’re Biased: Autonomic Arousal and Reasoning Conflict.”)

Many of these debiasing techniques have to do with education regarding cognitive functions, from training in decision-making processes to “time outs,” to checklists à la Atul Gawande, to other methods of metacognition.

But the two key prerequisites to all of these approaches are more or less self-evident. “For biases to be successfully addressed,” says Dr. Croskerry, “there needs to be ... awareness as well as the motivation for change.”

In a previous article we discussed the need to heighten awareness over and above current levels, and we have suggested steps toward that end. But awareness is only the first prerequisite; the second is motivation, and the depth of motivation necessary to create change in the business of orthopedic inclusion is, for all the AAOS’s efforts, simply inadequate – the result being that the culture does not change, or it changes so glacially as to be hardly noticeable.

Ms. McFarling noted in her interviews with orthopedic leaders, clinicians, residents, and medical students simmering feelings of frustration and perplexity. We would suggest that the frustration is because of the fact that, while there is a general awareness of the problem, there has simply not been the sufficiently determined motivation to fix it. “It is not neglected truths,” as religious scholar Gregory Dix put it, “but those that are at once fully acknowledged and frustrated of their proper expression, which take the most drastic psychological revenge.”

All of this leads back to the original problem posed by Prof. Weber, the former AAOS president: changing the orthopedic culture. The question of how cultures undergo transformation has been addressed by scholars across widely diverse fields (see, for example, Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Francis Fukuyama›s The End of History and the Last Man, and many others). But we are addressing here a narrow, well-defined slice of that problem. And our own explorations have led to the conclusion that the answer here lies in the issue of motivation – namely, how can a community that is aware of a problem be sufficiently motivated to fix it?

In Seeing Patients we argued that doctoring is the paradigmatic humanitarian profession, that physicians’ whole business is to care for and alleviate the suffering of other human beings. In this sense, doctors are the carriers of the humane ideal, which is congruent also with the noblest egalitarian principles of our life as a nation. We argued also that humanitarian medicine with its egalitarian mandate is a win-win-win proposition. The patient wins, the doctor wins, the society wins.

We think arguments like these should provide plenty of motivation for change. But in reality they are not sufficient. Our arguments and those of others along the same lines (see Louis Sullivan’s Breaking Ground and David McBride’s Caring for Equality) are directed for the most part at the better angels of our nature. They appeal to personal and political values: compassion, fairness, equality – powerful yet set against custom, habituation, and the daily pressures of practice, such arguments can and do easily come up short.

But when looked at straight on, with unblinking eyes, health care disparities should provoke other more forceful emotions: anger, to begin with; chagrin, consternation. Women receive fewer heart catheterizations and reperfusions than men. (See R. Di Cecco and colleagues’ “Is There a Clinically Significant Gender Bias in Post-Myocardial Infarction Pharmacological Management in the Older Population of a Primary Care Practice?” and Jneid and coworkers’ “Sex Difference in Medical Care and Early Death after Acute Myocardial Infarction.”) Because of this, more women die.

Blacks and Hispanics receive fewer analgesics for the excruciating pain of broken bones, and they are amputated more frequently than whites for identical peripheral arterial disease. (See Knox and colleagues’ “Ethnicity as a Risk Factor for Inadequate Emergency Department Analgesia,” Bonham’s “Race, Ethnicity and Pain Treatments: Striving to Understand the Causes and Solutions to the Disparities in Pain Treatments,” and Feinglass and coworkers’ “Racial Differences in Primary and Repeat Lower Extremity Amputation: Results From a Multihospital Study.”) They suffer accordingly.

The statistical accounting of these disparities masks the faces of pain and desperation – of disabilities, often of mortality. These are hard visceral truths that derive in part from the underrepresentation of minorities in various specialties, most pronounced in orthopedics. These are the truths that, when actually absorbed rather than just registered, have the capacity to transform awareness into motivation and in so doing can begin reshaping a culture that restricts minorities and women and makes orthopedics, as Ms. McFarling calls it, “the whitest specialty.”

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

As Usha Lee McFarling has pointed out, the orthopedic surgeon specialty suffers from a gross underrepresentation of minorities and women, more severe than in other medical specialties. There are various reasons for this and a variety of possible paths toward improvement, but the “critical first step,” as American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons former president Kristy Weber, MD, told Ms. McFarling, “is changing the culture.”

“Changing the culture” is a large, diffuse aspiration. The AAOS has taken a number of steps toward that end, but they have not had much success. The two of us have identified others, which may help to move the needle. But any approach to resolving this stubbornly resistant racial and gender imbalance requires, first of all, an understanding of the psychological and neurobiological roots that underlie it.

Viewed from this perspective, the cultural barriers to inclusivity are similar to those that perpetuate inequitable health care. Both are driven by ingroup/outgroup prejudices that operate below the level of consciousness and are largely unseen.In our book Seeing Patients, we examined health disparities in six “non-mainstream” groups: African Americans, Hispanic Americans, women, gays and lesbians, and the elderly. We based our work initially on the Institute of Medicine’s breakthrough 2003 compendium, Unequal Treatment, which brought together a large number of studies on health care inequities that had appeared in a variety of journals over many years, but had never generated the critical mass necessary to create a call for action or even attract serious attention.

Unequal Treatment allowed us to understand that each medical specialty, right down the line – orthopedics, cardiology, gynecology, oncology, psychiatry, to name just a few – has its own grim history of discrimination. Our sense of the medical community in the 21st century led us away from the idea that overt bias is a significant cause of these still ongoing inequities. Most physicians, we believed, consider themselves to be, and strive to be, humane, compassionate, and egalitarian caregivers. The answer then seemed to be in subconscious rather than conscious bias.

As we reviewed the literature and strove to understand the primary drivers of the discrimination that systematically affects medical care, our attention was drawn to two critical and complementary mechanisms hard-wired into our systems for parsing and responding to our environment. The first was “stereotyping,” so often used as a pejorative, but which is, in fact, a primary and essential mental function.

“We all make stereotypic judgments,” says Rice University emeritus professor of psychology David Schneider in The Psychology of Stereotyping (page 419). “It happens with race. It happens with disability. It happens ... with gender, age, and physical appearance. ... That’s just the way it is: Our mental apparatus was designed to facilitate quick decisions based on category membership.”

Differentiation – social stereotyping in our case – is a given, then; it’s innate. The content of stereotyping – of Blacks, gays, women, and others – is not innate, but it is deeply ingrained by living in a given milieu and just as impossible to ignore.

The second mechanism we focused on was the neurobiology that underlies the impact of hidden emotion on rational thought. In his seminal book Descartes’ Error, neuroscientist Antonio Damasio spells out how the mind with its cognitive functions has evolved from the body and its emotional systems, and how they function together through neuro-networks that connect the mechanisms of feeling with the brain’s decision-making centers.

“Feelings,” Dr. Damasio tells us, “come first in [brain] development and retain a primacy that pervades our mental life.” The limbic system, the part of the brain that controls our emotional responses, constitutes a “frame of reference and has “a say on how the rest of the brain and cognition go about their business. [Its] influence is immense.” (Page 185)

Dr. Damasio was not focusing on medical decisions, but his insights, we felt, had great relevance for the question of unconscious bias in health care. Various studies by physicians and medical scientists do speak directly to the issue of how affective bias influences diagnosis and treatment. Pat Croskerry, director of Dalhousie University’s Clinical Research Center, argues that “cognitive and affective biases are known to compromise the decision-making” and that commonly “these are largely unconscious mistakes.”

Harvard’s Jerome Groopman, in his book How Doctors Think (page 40), writes that most incorrect diagnoses and treatments are “mistakes in thinking. And part of what causes these cognitive errors is our inner feelings, feelings we ... often don’t even recognize.” Cognition and emotion, Dr. Groopman insists, are inseparable. The emotional landscape sets the ground for decision-making.

The underlying mechanisms that enable health care prejudice are the same that enable interpersonal prejudice generally. Unseen and largely unrecognized, they affect ingroup/outgroup relations in every field of interaction, from bias in policing, to bias in housing, to bias in employment – “powerful and universal,” in Dr. Croskerry’s words, “affecting all walks of life.”

Decision-making about acceptance into orthopedic residencies is no exception. As Prof. Schneider says, “That’s just the way it is.”

What conclusions can be drawn from understanding the deep origins of subconscious bias that might improve the inclusion of minorities and women in orthopedics? A growing interest in “debiasing” in both the medical and cognitive psychology literature has identified or suggested methods of counteracting the prejudices we all harbor. (See Bhatti’s “Cognitive Bias in Clinical Practice,” Wilson and Brekke’s “Mental Contamination and Mental Correction: Unwanted Influences on Judgments and Evaluations,” and De Neys and colleagues’ “Feeling We’re Biased: Autonomic Arousal and Reasoning Conflict.”)

Many of these debiasing techniques have to do with education regarding cognitive functions, from training in decision-making processes to “time outs,” to checklists à la Atul Gawande, to other methods of metacognition.

But the two key prerequisites to all of these approaches are more or less self-evident. “For biases to be successfully addressed,” says Dr. Croskerry, “there needs to be ... awareness as well as the motivation for change.”

In a previous article we discussed the need to heighten awareness over and above current levels, and we have suggested steps toward that end. But awareness is only the first prerequisite; the second is motivation, and the depth of motivation necessary to create change in the business of orthopedic inclusion is, for all the AAOS’s efforts, simply inadequate – the result being that the culture does not change, or it changes so glacially as to be hardly noticeable.

Ms. McFarling noted in her interviews with orthopedic leaders, clinicians, residents, and medical students simmering feelings of frustration and perplexity. We would suggest that the frustration is because of the fact that, while there is a general awareness of the problem, there has simply not been the sufficiently determined motivation to fix it. “It is not neglected truths,” as religious scholar Gregory Dix put it, “but those that are at once fully acknowledged and frustrated of their proper expression, which take the most drastic psychological revenge.”

All of this leads back to the original problem posed by Prof. Weber, the former AAOS president: changing the orthopedic culture. The question of how cultures undergo transformation has been addressed by scholars across widely diverse fields (see, for example, Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Francis Fukuyama›s The End of History and the Last Man, and many others). But we are addressing here a narrow, well-defined slice of that problem. And our own explorations have led to the conclusion that the answer here lies in the issue of motivation – namely, how can a community that is aware of a problem be sufficiently motivated to fix it?

In Seeing Patients we argued that doctoring is the paradigmatic humanitarian profession, that physicians’ whole business is to care for and alleviate the suffering of other human beings. In this sense, doctors are the carriers of the humane ideal, which is congruent also with the noblest egalitarian principles of our life as a nation. We argued also that humanitarian medicine with its egalitarian mandate is a win-win-win proposition. The patient wins, the doctor wins, the society wins.

We think arguments like these should provide plenty of motivation for change. But in reality they are not sufficient. Our arguments and those of others along the same lines (see Louis Sullivan’s Breaking Ground and David McBride’s Caring for Equality) are directed for the most part at the better angels of our nature. They appeal to personal and political values: compassion, fairness, equality – powerful yet set against custom, habituation, and the daily pressures of practice, such arguments can and do easily come up short.

But when looked at straight on, with unblinking eyes, health care disparities should provoke other more forceful emotions: anger, to begin with; chagrin, consternation. Women receive fewer heart catheterizations and reperfusions than men. (See R. Di Cecco and colleagues’ “Is There a Clinically Significant Gender Bias in Post-Myocardial Infarction Pharmacological Management in the Older Population of a Primary Care Practice?” and Jneid and coworkers’ “Sex Difference in Medical Care and Early Death after Acute Myocardial Infarction.”) Because of this, more women die.

Blacks and Hispanics receive fewer analgesics for the excruciating pain of broken bones, and they are amputated more frequently than whites for identical peripheral arterial disease. (See Knox and colleagues’ “Ethnicity as a Risk Factor for Inadequate Emergency Department Analgesia,” Bonham’s “Race, Ethnicity and Pain Treatments: Striving to Understand the Causes and Solutions to the Disparities in Pain Treatments,” and Feinglass and coworkers’ “Racial Differences in Primary and Repeat Lower Extremity Amputation: Results From a Multihospital Study.”) They suffer accordingly.

The statistical accounting of these disparities masks the faces of pain and desperation – of disabilities, often of mortality. These are hard visceral truths that derive in part from the underrepresentation of minorities in various specialties, most pronounced in orthopedics. These are the truths that, when actually absorbed rather than just registered, have the capacity to transform awareness into motivation and in so doing can begin reshaping a culture that restricts minorities and women and makes orthopedics, as Ms. McFarling calls it, “the whitest specialty.”

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

SAN DIEGO – Race-based recommendations and clinical algorithms may be doing more harm than good, according to a systematic review of databases and guidelines.

The study found examples of screening recommendations based on race or ethnicity that were likely misleading since these are social constructs that don’t reflect a patient’s individual risk, said Shazia Siddique, MD, who presented the study at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW). “Historically, we’ve made so many clinical decisions based on somebody’s race and ethnicity. We walk into a room, we don’t even ask people which racial or ethnic category they identify with. We just look at them and we say, ‘Their skin color looks black, and therefore we’re going to apply a different equation to them.’ ”

Jim Kling/Frontline Medical News

However, a patient’s risks and unique health circumstances are much more complicated than that. They may be related to genetics, or environmental exposures, or level of access to quality health care. Race can often be inappropriately used as a stand-in for these and other factors, she explained.

“These [racial] categories are truly a social construct. It’s becoming very problematic that people are literally making decisions based on somebody’s skin color. That’s just not what the science supports. If there are specific genes or environmental factors, or differences in access to health care that then impact outcomes for certain racial or ethnic groups, we need to figure out what those are,” said Dr. Siddique, who is an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Those messages are still entrenched in medical education. “I graduated medical school in 2012, and it was taught to me to use race and ethnicity in clinical decision-making. We need to start in medical education to shift the way that we’re thinking. On the research side, we really need to think about how we can replace or remove race and ethnicity and understand the consequences of that, so that over time we can make a shift,” said Dr. Siddique.

For example, Dr. Siddique discussed recommendations that suggest Asian heritage as a risk factor for hepatitis B screening, but that’s not a good factor to consider: “People were saying that Asians should be screened at an earlier age, but it’s really people that were born and raised in Asian countries where it’s endemic or they may have gotten it from their mothers at birth. It’s a marker for how long you have had the disease and how much virus is in your bloodstream. It’s not because you’re Asian. If you’re born and raised in the United States, and you don’t have any of those risk factors, you shouldn’t be treated differently based on your identified racial and ethnic group,” said Dr. Siddique.

These questions have become even more important in recent years because of patients with multiracial identifies and other considerations. “Now the proxy for which race was being used is even messier,” said Dr. Siddique.

So, how should physicians think about assessing a patient’s personalized risks? The key, said Dr. Siddique, is to look at each patient’s individual factors, such as health care access, environmental exposures from jobs or living conditions, or the country they emigrated from if they weren’t born in the United States. “Disease prevalences are different in different areas, and that changes your index of suspicion,” she said.

And when considering current guidelines that incorporate race or ethnicity, she recommends viewing them skeptically: “If there is a current algorithm in your health system or in a guideline that you’re reading that says you should be making a change based on race and ethnicity, you should look at that with a close eye and say, “What do I think it’s being used as a proxy for, and how can I elicit that from my patient?’ ”

The issues raised by Dr. Siddique’s study are important, but there also could be concerns in taking them too far, according to Gary Falk, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania who comoderated the session where Dr. Siddique presented. He was not involved in the study, but was listed on Dr. Siddique’s acknowledgement slide.

Dr. Falk coauthored Barrett’s esophagus guidelines in 2016 that incorporated White race as a risk factor.

“There are certain clear ethnic factors or country of origin factors that impact one’s risk for cancer, and there are certain diseases that are more common in certain ethnic groups. I think that if we homogenize everybody, we may potentially hurt some people in the effort to be inclusive. That’s my only concern. I think it’s totally correct that we have to get out of our comfort zone, but I hate to see us reach too far on the other end, and homogenize things to the point that people who have increased risk are not being recognized for that reason,” said Dr. Falk.

He acknowledged that White race as a risk for Barrett’s is not easy to define given the uncertainty of the genetic risk, for example, in patients with mixed heritage. “This is all very provocative. We have to think about it carefully,” said Dr. Falk.

Dr. Siddique and Dr. Falk have no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – Race-based recommendations and clinical algorithms may be doing more harm than good, according to a systematic review of databases and guidelines.

The study found examples of screening recommendations based on race or ethnicity that were likely misleading since these are social constructs that don’t reflect a patient’s individual risk, said Shazia Siddique, MD, who presented the study at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW). “Historically, we’ve made so many clinical decisions based on somebody’s race and ethnicity. We walk into a room, we don’t even ask people which racial or ethnic category they identify with. We just look at them and we say, ‘Their skin color looks black, and therefore we’re going to apply a different equation to them.’ ”

Jim Kling/Frontline Medical News

However, a patient’s risks and unique health circumstances are much more complicated than that. They may be related to genetics, or environmental exposures, or level of access to quality health care. Race can often be inappropriately used as a stand-in for these and other factors, she explained.

“These [racial] categories are truly a social construct. It’s becoming very problematic that people are literally making decisions based on somebody’s skin color. That’s just not what the science supports. If there are specific genes or environmental factors, or differences in access to health care that then impact outcomes for certain racial or ethnic groups, we need to figure out what those are,” said Dr. Siddique, who is an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Those messages are still entrenched in medical education. “I graduated medical school in 2012, and it was taught to me to use race and ethnicity in clinical decision-making. We need to start in medical education to shift the way that we’re thinking. On the research side, we really need to think about how we can replace or remove race and ethnicity and understand the consequences of that, so that over time we can make a shift,” said Dr. Siddique.

For example, Dr. Siddique discussed recommendations that suggest Asian heritage as a risk factor for hepatitis B screening, but that’s not a good factor to consider: “People were saying that Asians should be screened at an earlier age, but it’s really people that were born and raised in Asian countries where it’s endemic or they may have gotten it from their mothers at birth. It’s a marker for how long you have had the disease and how much virus is in your bloodstream. It’s not because you’re Asian. If you’re born and raised in the United States, and you don’t have any of those risk factors, you shouldn’t be treated differently based on your identified racial and ethnic group,” said Dr. Siddique.

These questions have become even more important in recent years because of patients with multiracial identifies and other considerations. “Now the proxy for which race was being used is even messier,” said Dr. Siddique.

So, how should physicians think about assessing a patient’s personalized risks? The key, said Dr. Siddique, is to look at each patient’s individual factors, such as health care access, environmental exposures from jobs or living conditions, or the country they emigrated from if they weren’t born in the United States. “Disease prevalences are different in different areas, and that changes your index of suspicion,” she said.

And when considering current guidelines that incorporate race or ethnicity, she recommends viewing them skeptically: “If there is a current algorithm in your health system or in a guideline that you’re reading that says you should be making a change based on race and ethnicity, you should look at that with a close eye and say, “What do I think it’s being used as a proxy for, and how can I elicit that from my patient?’ ”

The issues raised by Dr. Siddique’s study are important, but there also could be concerns in taking them too far, according to Gary Falk, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania who comoderated the session where Dr. Siddique presented. He was not involved in the study, but was listed on Dr. Siddique’s acknowledgement slide.

Dr. Falk coauthored Barrett’s esophagus guidelines in 2016 that incorporated White race as a risk factor.

“There are certain clear ethnic factors or country of origin factors that impact one’s risk for cancer, and there are certain diseases that are more common in certain ethnic groups. I think that if we homogenize everybody, we may potentially hurt some people in the effort to be inclusive. That’s my only concern. I think it’s totally correct that we have to get out of our comfort zone, but I hate to see us reach too far on the other end, and homogenize things to the point that people who have increased risk are not being recognized for that reason,” said Dr. Falk.

He acknowledged that White race as a risk for Barrett’s is not easy to define given the uncertainty of the genetic risk, for example, in patients with mixed heritage. “This is all very provocative. We have to think about it carefully,” said Dr. Falk.

Dr. Siddique and Dr. Falk have no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – Race-based recommendations and clinical algorithms may be doing more harm than good, according to a systematic review of databases and guidelines.

The study found examples of screening recommendations based on race or ethnicity that were likely misleading since these are social constructs that don’t reflect a patient’s individual risk, said Shazia Siddique, MD, who presented the study at the annual Digestive Disease Week^® (DDW). “Historically, we’ve made so many clinical decisions based on somebody’s race and ethnicity. We walk into a room, we don’t even ask people which racial or ethnic category they identify with. We just look at them and we say, ‘Their skin color looks black, and therefore we’re going to apply a different equation to them.’ ”

Jim Kling/Frontline Medical News

However, a patient’s risks and unique health circumstances are much more complicated than that. They may be related to genetics, or environmental exposures, or level of access to quality health care. Race can often be inappropriately used as a stand-in for these and other factors, she explained.

“These [racial] categories are truly a social construct. It’s becoming very problematic that people are literally making decisions based on somebody’s skin color. That’s just not what the science supports. If there are specific genes or environmental factors, or differences in access to health care that then impact outcomes for certain racial or ethnic groups, we need to figure out what those are,” said Dr. Siddique, who is an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Those messages are still entrenched in medical education. “I graduated medical school in 2012, and it was taught to me to use race and ethnicity in clinical decision-making. We need to start in medical education to shift the way that we’re thinking. On the research side, we really need to think about how we can replace or remove race and ethnicity and understand the consequences of that, so that over time we can make a shift,” said Dr. Siddique.

For example, Dr. Siddique discussed recommendations that suggest Asian heritage as a risk factor for hepatitis B screening, but that’s not a good factor to consider: “People were saying that Asians should be screened at an earlier age, but it’s really people that were born and raised in Asian countries where it’s endemic or they may have gotten it from their mothers at birth. It’s a marker for how long you have had the disease and how much virus is in your bloodstream. It’s not because you’re Asian. If you’re born and raised in the United States, and you don’t have any of those risk factors, you shouldn’t be treated differently based on your identified racial and ethnic group,” said Dr. Siddique.

These questions have become even more important in recent years because of patients with multiracial identifies and other considerations. “Now the proxy for which race was being used is even messier,” said Dr. Siddique.

So, how should physicians think about assessing a patient’s personalized risks? The key, said Dr. Siddique, is to look at each patient’s individual factors, such as health care access, environmental exposures from jobs or living conditions, or the country they emigrated from if they weren’t born in the United States. “Disease prevalences are different in different areas, and that changes your index of suspicion,” she said.

And when considering current guidelines that incorporate race or ethnicity, she recommends viewing them skeptically: “If there is a current algorithm in your health system or in a guideline that you’re reading that says you should be making a change based on race and ethnicity, you should look at that with a close eye and say, “What do I think it’s being used as a proxy for, and how can I elicit that from my patient?’ ”

The issues raised by Dr. Siddique’s study are important, but there also could be concerns in taking them too far, according to Gary Falk, MD, a professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania who comoderated the session where Dr. Siddique presented. He was not involved in the study, but was listed on Dr. Siddique’s acknowledgement slide.

Dr. Falk coauthored Barrett’s esophagus guidelines in 2016 that incorporated White race as a risk factor.

“There are certain clear ethnic factors or country of origin factors that impact one’s risk for cancer, and there are certain diseases that are more common in certain ethnic groups. I think that if we homogenize everybody, we may potentially hurt some people in the effort to be inclusive. That’s my only concern. I think it’s totally correct that we have to get out of our comfort zone, but I hate to see us reach too far on the other end, and homogenize things to the point that people who have increased risk are not being recognized for that reason,” said Dr. Falk.

He acknowledged that White race as a risk for Barrett’s is not easy to define given the uncertainty of the genetic risk, for example, in patients with mixed heritage. “This is all very provocative. We have to think about it carefully,” said Dr. Falk.

Dr. Siddique and Dr. Falk have no relevant financial disclosures.