Diversity in Medicine

One in three Black men in rural America experienced suicidal or death ideation (SDI) in the past week, new research showed.

A developmental model used in the study showed a direct association between experiences pertaining to threat, deprivation, and racial discrimination during childhood and suicide risk in adulthood, suggesting that a broad range of adverse experiences in early life may affect SDI risk among Black men.

“During the past 20-30 years, young Black men have evinced increasing levels of suicidal behavior and related cognitions,” lead author Steven Kogan, PhD, professor of family and consumer sciences at the University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, and colleagues wrote.

“By controlling for depressive symptoms in assessing increases in SDI over time, our study’s design directly informed the extent to which social adversities affect SDI independent of other depressive problems,” they added.

The findings were published online in Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology.
 

Second Leading Cause of Death

Suicide is the second leading cause of death for Black Americans ages 15-24, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The outlook is worse for Black men, whose death rate from suicide is about four times greater than for Black women.

Previous research suggests Black men are disproportionately exposed to social adversity, including poverty and discrimination, which may increase the risk for SDI. In addition, racial discrimination has been shown to increase the risks for depression, anxiety, and psychological distress among Black youth and adults.

But little research exists to better understand how these negative experiences affect vulnerability to SDI. The new study tested a model linking adversity during childhood and emerging exposure to racial discrimination to increases in suicidal thoughts.

Researchers analyzed data from 504 participants in the African American Men’s Project, which included a series of surveys completed by young men in rural Georgia at three different time points over a period of about 3 years.

Composite scores for childhood threat and deprivation were developed using the Adverse Childhood Experiences Scale and Childhood Trauma Questionnaire. Everyday discrimination was measured on the Schedule of Racist Events response scale.

To assess their experience with childhood threats, the men in the study, who were about 21 years old on average when they enrolled, were asked if they experienced a series of adverse childhood experiences and deprivation through age 16. Questions explored issues such as directly experiencing physical violence or witnessing abuse in the home and whether the men felt loved and “important or special” as children.

The investigators also asked the men about their experiences of racial discrimination, the quality of their relationships, their belief that aggression is a means of gaining respect, and their cynicism regarding romantic relationships.
 

Targeted Prevention

Overall, 33.6% of participants reported SDI in the previous week. A history of childhood threats and deprivation was associated with an increased likelihood of SDI (P < .001).

Researchers also found that a history of racial discrimination was significantly associated with the development of negative relational schemas, which are characterized by beliefs that other people are untrustworthy, uncaring, and/or hostile. Negative schemas were in turn associated with an increased risk for suicidal thoughts (P = .03).

“Clinical and preventive interventions for suicidality should target the influence of racism and adverse experiences and the negative relational schemas they induce,” the investigators noted.

“Policy efforts designed to dismantle systemic racism are critically needed. Interventions that address SDI, including programming designed to support Black men through their experiences with racial discrimination and processing of childhood experiences of adversity, may help young Black men resist the psychological impacts of racism, expand their positive support networks, and decrease their risk of SDI,” they added.

The study authors reported no funding sources or relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

One in three Black men in rural America experienced suicidal or death ideation (SDI) in the past week, new research showed.

A developmental model used in the study showed a direct association between experiences pertaining to threat, deprivation, and racial discrimination during childhood and suicide risk in adulthood, suggesting that a broad range of adverse experiences in early life may affect SDI risk among Black men.

“During the past 20-30 years, young Black men have evinced increasing levels of suicidal behavior and related cognitions,” lead author Steven Kogan, PhD, professor of family and consumer sciences at the University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, and colleagues wrote.

“By controlling for depressive symptoms in assessing increases in SDI over time, our study’s design directly informed the extent to which social adversities affect SDI independent of other depressive problems,” they added.

The findings were published online in Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology.
 

Second Leading Cause of Death

Suicide is the second leading cause of death for Black Americans ages 15-24, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The outlook is worse for Black men, whose death rate from suicide is about four times greater than for Black women.

Previous research suggests Black men are disproportionately exposed to social adversity, including poverty and discrimination, which may increase the risk for SDI. In addition, racial discrimination has been shown to increase the risks for depression, anxiety, and psychological distress among Black youth and adults.

But little research exists to better understand how these negative experiences affect vulnerability to SDI. The new study tested a model linking adversity during childhood and emerging exposure to racial discrimination to increases in suicidal thoughts.

Researchers analyzed data from 504 participants in the African American Men’s Project, which included a series of surveys completed by young men in rural Georgia at three different time points over a period of about 3 years.

Composite scores for childhood threat and deprivation were developed using the Adverse Childhood Experiences Scale and Childhood Trauma Questionnaire. Everyday discrimination was measured on the Schedule of Racist Events response scale.

To assess their experience with childhood threats, the men in the study, who were about 21 years old on average when they enrolled, were asked if they experienced a series of adverse childhood experiences and deprivation through age 16. Questions explored issues such as directly experiencing physical violence or witnessing abuse in the home and whether the men felt loved and “important or special” as children.

The investigators also asked the men about their experiences of racial discrimination, the quality of their relationships, their belief that aggression is a means of gaining respect, and their cynicism regarding romantic relationships.
 

Targeted Prevention

Overall, 33.6% of participants reported SDI in the previous week. A history of childhood threats and deprivation was associated with an increased likelihood of SDI (P < .001).

Researchers also found that a history of racial discrimination was significantly associated with the development of negative relational schemas, which are characterized by beliefs that other people are untrustworthy, uncaring, and/or hostile. Negative schemas were in turn associated with an increased risk for suicidal thoughts (P = .03).

“Clinical and preventive interventions for suicidality should target the influence of racism and adverse experiences and the negative relational schemas they induce,” the investigators noted.

“Policy efforts designed to dismantle systemic racism are critically needed. Interventions that address SDI, including programming designed to support Black men through their experiences with racial discrimination and processing of childhood experiences of adversity, may help young Black men resist the psychological impacts of racism, expand their positive support networks, and decrease their risk of SDI,” they added.

The study authors reported no funding sources or relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

One in three Black men in rural America experienced suicidal or death ideation (SDI) in the past week, new research showed.

A developmental model used in the study showed a direct association between experiences pertaining to threat, deprivation, and racial discrimination during childhood and suicide risk in adulthood, suggesting that a broad range of adverse experiences in early life may affect SDI risk among Black men.

“During the past 20-30 years, young Black men have evinced increasing levels of suicidal behavior and related cognitions,” lead author Steven Kogan, PhD, professor of family and consumer sciences at the University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, and colleagues wrote.

“By controlling for depressive symptoms in assessing increases in SDI over time, our study’s design directly informed the extent to which social adversities affect SDI independent of other depressive problems,” they added.

The findings were published online in Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology.
 

Second Leading Cause of Death

Suicide is the second leading cause of death for Black Americans ages 15-24, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The outlook is worse for Black men, whose death rate from suicide is about four times greater than for Black women.

Previous research suggests Black men are disproportionately exposed to social adversity, including poverty and discrimination, which may increase the risk for SDI. In addition, racial discrimination has been shown to increase the risks for depression, anxiety, and psychological distress among Black youth and adults.

But little research exists to better understand how these negative experiences affect vulnerability to SDI. The new study tested a model linking adversity during childhood and emerging exposure to racial discrimination to increases in suicidal thoughts.

Researchers analyzed data from 504 participants in the African American Men’s Project, which included a series of surveys completed by young men in rural Georgia at three different time points over a period of about 3 years.

Composite scores for childhood threat and deprivation were developed using the Adverse Childhood Experiences Scale and Childhood Trauma Questionnaire. Everyday discrimination was measured on the Schedule of Racist Events response scale.

To assess their experience with childhood threats, the men in the study, who were about 21 years old on average when they enrolled, were asked if they experienced a series of adverse childhood experiences and deprivation through age 16. Questions explored issues such as directly experiencing physical violence or witnessing abuse in the home and whether the men felt loved and “important or special” as children.

The investigators also asked the men about their experiences of racial discrimination, the quality of their relationships, their belief that aggression is a means of gaining respect, and their cynicism regarding romantic relationships.
 

Targeted Prevention

Overall, 33.6% of participants reported SDI in the previous week. A history of childhood threats and deprivation was associated with an increased likelihood of SDI (P < .001).

Researchers also found that a history of racial discrimination was significantly associated with the development of negative relational schemas, which are characterized by beliefs that other people are untrustworthy, uncaring, and/or hostile. Negative schemas were in turn associated with an increased risk for suicidal thoughts (P = .03).

“Clinical and preventive interventions for suicidality should target the influence of racism and adverse experiences and the negative relational schemas they induce,” the investigators noted.

“Policy efforts designed to dismantle systemic racism are critically needed. Interventions that address SDI, including programming designed to support Black men through their experiences with racial discrimination and processing of childhood experiences of adversity, may help young Black men resist the psychological impacts of racism, expand their positive support networks, and decrease their risk of SDI,” they added.

The study authors reported no funding sources or relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinical images are integral to dermatologic care, research, and education. Studies have highlighted the underrepresentation of images of skin of color (SOC) in educational materials,¹ clinical trials,² and research publications.³ Recognition of this disparity has ignited a call to action by dermatologists and dermatologic organizations to address the gap by improving the collection and use of SOC images.⁴ It is critical to remind dermatologists of the importance of properly obtaining informed consent and ensuring images are not used without a patient’s permission, as images in journal articles, conference presentations, and educational materials can be widely distributed and shared. Herein, we summarize current practices of clinical image storage and make general recommendations on how dermatologists can better protect patient privacy. Certain cultural and social factors in patients with SOC should be considered when obtaining informed consent and collecting images.

Clinical Image Acquisition

Consenting procedures are crucial components of proper image usage. However, current consenting practices are inconsistent across various platforms, including academic journals, websites, printed text, social media, and educational presentations.⁵

Current regulations for use of patient health information in the United States are governed by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)of 1996. Although this act explicitly prohibits use of “full face photographic images and any comparable images” without consent from the patient or the patient’s representative, there is less restriction regarding the use of deidentified images.⁶ Some clinicians or researchers may consider using a black bar or a masking technique over the eyes or face, but this is not always a sufficient method of anonymizing an image.

One study investigating the different requirements listed by the top 20 dermatology journals (as determined by the Google Scholar h5-index) found that while 95% (19/20) of journals stated that written or signed consent or permission was a requirement for use of patient images, only 20% (4/20) instructed authors to inform the patient or the patient’s representative that images may become available on the internet.⁵ Once an article is accepted for publication by a medical journal, it eventually may be accessible online; however, patients may not be aware of this factor, which is particularly concerning for those with SOC due to the increased demand for diverse dermatologic resources and images as well as the highly digitalized manner in which we access and share media.

Furthermore, cultural and social factors exist that present challenges to informed decision-making during the consenting process for certain SOC populations such as a lack of trust in the medical and scientific research community, inadequate comprehension of the consent material, health illiteracy, language barriers, or use of complex terminology in consent documentation.^7,8 Studies also have shown that patients in ethnic minority groups have greater barriers to health literacy compared to other patient groups, and patients with limited health literacy are less likely to ask questions during their medical visits.^9,10 Therefore, when obtaining informed consent for images, it is important that measures are taken to ensure that the patient has full knowledge and understanding of what the consent covers, including the extent to which the images will be used and/or shared and whether the patient’s confidentiality and/or anonymity are at risk.

Recommendations—We propose that dermatologists should follow these recommendations:

1. Encourage influential dermatology organizations such as the American Academy of Dermatology to establish standardized consenting procedures for image acquisition and use, including requirements to provide (a) written consent for all patient images and (b) specific details as to where and how the image may be used and/or shared.

2. Ensure that consent terminology is presented at a sixth-grade reading level or below, minimize the use of medical jargon and complex terms, and provide consent documentation in the patient’s preferred language.

3. Allow patients to take the consent document home so they can have additional time to comprehensively review the material or have it reviewed by family or friends.

4. Employ strategies such as teach-back methods and encourage questions to maximize the level of understanding during the consent process.

Clinical Image Storage

Clinical image storage procedures can have an impact on a patient’s health information remaining anonymous and confidential. In a survey evaluating medical photography use among 153 US board-certified dermatologists, 69.1% of respondents reported emailing or texting images between patients and colleagues. Additionally, 30.3% (46/152) reported having patient photographs stored on their personal phone at the time of the survey, and 39.1% (18/46) of those individuals had images that showed identifiable features, such as the patient’s face or a tattoo.¹¹

Although most providers state that their devices are password protected, it cannot be guaranteed that the device and consequently the images remain secure and inaccessible to unauthorized individuals. As sharing and viewing images continue to play an essential role in assessing disease state, progression, treatment response, and inclusion in research, we must establish and encourage clear guidelines for the storage and retention of such images.

Recommendations—We propose that dermatologists should follow these recommendations:

1. Store clinical images exclusively on password-protected devices and in password-protected files.

2. Use work-related cameras or electronic devices rather than personal devices, unless the personal device is being used to upload directly into the patient’s medical record. In such cases, use a HIPAA-compliant electronic medical record mobile application that does not store images on the application or the device itself.

3. Avoid using text-messaging systems or unencrypted email to share identifying images without clear patient consent.

Clinical Image Use

Once a thorough consenting process has been completed, it is crucial that the use and distribution of the clinical image are in accordance with the terms specified in the original consent. With the current state of technologic advancement, widespread social media usage, and constant sharing of information, adherence to these terms can be challenging. For example, an image initially intended for use in an educational presentation at a professional conference can be shared on social media if an audience member captures a photo of it. In another example, a patient may consent to their image being shown on a dermatologic website but that image can be duplicated and shared on other unauthorized sites and locations. This situation can be particularly distressing to patients whose image may include all or most of their face, an intimate area, or other physical features that they did not wish to share widely.

Individuals identifying as Black/African American, Latino/Hispanic, or Asian have been shown to express less comfort with providing permission for images of a nonidentifiable sensitive area to be taken (or obtained) or for use for teaching irrespective of identifiability compared to their White counterparts,¹² which may be due to the aforementioned lack of trust in medical providers and the health care system in general, both of which may contribute to concerns with how a clinical image is used and/or shared. Although consent from a patient or the patient’s representative can be granted, we must ensure that the use of these images adheres to the patient’s initial agreement. Ultimately, medical providers, researchers, and other parties involved in acquiring or sharing patient images have both an ethical and legal responsibility to ensure that anonymity, privacy, and confidentiality are preserved to the greatest extent possible.

Recommendations—We propose that dermatologists should follow these recommendations:

1. Display a message on websites containing patient images stating that the sharing of the images outside the established guidelines and intended use is prohibited.

2. Place a watermark on images to discourage unauthorized duplication.

3. Issue explicit instructions to audiences prohibiting the copying or reproducing of any patient images during teaching events or presentations.

Final Thoughts

The use of clinical images is an essential component of dermatologic care, education, and research. Due to the higher demand for diverse and representative images and the dearth of images in the medical literature, many SOC images have been widely disseminated and utilized by dermatologists, raising concerns of the adequacy of informed consent for the storage and use of such material. Therefore, dermatologists should implement streamlined guidelines and consent procedures to ensure a patient’s informed consent is provided with full knowledge of how and where their images might be used and shared. Additional efforts should be made to protect patients’ privacy and unauthorized use of their images. Furthermore, we encourage our leading dermatology organizations to develop expert consensus on best practices for appropriate clinical image consent, storage, and use.

Clinical images are integral to dermatologic care, research, and education. Studies have highlighted the underrepresentation of images of skin of color (SOC) in educational materials,¹ clinical trials,² and research publications.³ Recognition of this disparity has ignited a call to action by dermatologists and dermatologic organizations to address the gap by improving the collection and use of SOC images.⁴ It is critical to remind dermatologists of the importance of properly obtaining informed consent and ensuring images are not used without a patient’s permission, as images in journal articles, conference presentations, and educational materials can be widely distributed and shared. Herein, we summarize current practices of clinical image storage and make general recommendations on how dermatologists can better protect patient privacy. Certain cultural and social factors in patients with SOC should be considered when obtaining informed consent and collecting images.

Clinical Image Acquisition

Consenting procedures are crucial components of proper image usage. However, current consenting practices are inconsistent across various platforms, including academic journals, websites, printed text, social media, and educational presentations.⁵

Current regulations for use of patient health information in the United States are governed by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)of 1996. Although this act explicitly prohibits use of “full face photographic images and any comparable images” without consent from the patient or the patient’s representative, there is less restriction regarding the use of deidentified images.⁶ Some clinicians or researchers may consider using a black bar or a masking technique over the eyes or face, but this is not always a sufficient method of anonymizing an image.

One study investigating the different requirements listed by the top 20 dermatology journals (as determined by the Google Scholar h5-index) found that while 95% (19/20) of journals stated that written or signed consent or permission was a requirement for use of patient images, only 20% (4/20) instructed authors to inform the patient or the patient’s representative that images may become available on the internet.⁵ Once an article is accepted for publication by a medical journal, it eventually may be accessible online; however, patients may not be aware of this factor, which is particularly concerning for those with SOC due to the increased demand for diverse dermatologic resources and images as well as the highly digitalized manner in which we access and share media.

Furthermore, cultural and social factors exist that present challenges to informed decision-making during the consenting process for certain SOC populations such as a lack of trust in the medical and scientific research community, inadequate comprehension of the consent material, health illiteracy, language barriers, or use of complex terminology in consent documentation.^7,8 Studies also have shown that patients in ethnic minority groups have greater barriers to health literacy compared to other patient groups, and patients with limited health literacy are less likely to ask questions during their medical visits.^9,10 Therefore, when obtaining informed consent for images, it is important that measures are taken to ensure that the patient has full knowledge and understanding of what the consent covers, including the extent to which the images will be used and/or shared and whether the patient’s confidentiality and/or anonymity are at risk.

Recommendations—We propose that dermatologists should follow these recommendations:

1. Encourage influential dermatology organizations such as the American Academy of Dermatology to establish standardized consenting procedures for image acquisition and use, including requirements to provide (a) written consent for all patient images and (b) specific details as to where and how the image may be used and/or shared.

2. Ensure that consent terminology is presented at a sixth-grade reading level or below, minimize the use of medical jargon and complex terms, and provide consent documentation in the patient’s preferred language.

3. Allow patients to take the consent document home so they can have additional time to comprehensively review the material or have it reviewed by family or friends.

4. Employ strategies such as teach-back methods and encourage questions to maximize the level of understanding during the consent process.

Clinical Image Storage

Clinical image storage procedures can have an impact on a patient’s health information remaining anonymous and confidential. In a survey evaluating medical photography use among 153 US board-certified dermatologists, 69.1% of respondents reported emailing or texting images between patients and colleagues. Additionally, 30.3% (46/152) reported having patient photographs stored on their personal phone at the time of the survey, and 39.1% (18/46) of those individuals had images that showed identifiable features, such as the patient’s face or a tattoo.¹¹

Although most providers state that their devices are password protected, it cannot be guaranteed that the device and consequently the images remain secure and inaccessible to unauthorized individuals. As sharing and viewing images continue to play an essential role in assessing disease state, progression, treatment response, and inclusion in research, we must establish and encourage clear guidelines for the storage and retention of such images.

Recommendations—We propose that dermatologists should follow these recommendations:

1. Store clinical images exclusively on password-protected devices and in password-protected files.

2. Use work-related cameras or electronic devices rather than personal devices, unless the personal device is being used to upload directly into the patient’s medical record. In such cases, use a HIPAA-compliant electronic medical record mobile application that does not store images on the application or the device itself.

3. Avoid using text-messaging systems or unencrypted email to share identifying images without clear patient consent.

Clinical Image Use

Once a thorough consenting process has been completed, it is crucial that the use and distribution of the clinical image are in accordance with the terms specified in the original consent. With the current state of technologic advancement, widespread social media usage, and constant sharing of information, adherence to these terms can be challenging. For example, an image initially intended for use in an educational presentation at a professional conference can be shared on social media if an audience member captures a photo of it. In another example, a patient may consent to their image being shown on a dermatologic website but that image can be duplicated and shared on other unauthorized sites and locations. This situation can be particularly distressing to patients whose image may include all or most of their face, an intimate area, or other physical features that they did not wish to share widely.

Individuals identifying as Black/African American, Latino/Hispanic, or Asian have been shown to express less comfort with providing permission for images of a nonidentifiable sensitive area to be taken (or obtained) or for use for teaching irrespective of identifiability compared to their White counterparts,¹² which may be due to the aforementioned lack of trust in medical providers and the health care system in general, both of which may contribute to concerns with how a clinical image is used and/or shared. Although consent from a patient or the patient’s representative can be granted, we must ensure that the use of these images adheres to the patient’s initial agreement. Ultimately, medical providers, researchers, and other parties involved in acquiring or sharing patient images have both an ethical and legal responsibility to ensure that anonymity, privacy, and confidentiality are preserved to the greatest extent possible.

Recommendations—We propose that dermatologists should follow these recommendations:

1. Display a message on websites containing patient images stating that the sharing of the images outside the established guidelines and intended use is prohibited.

2. Place a watermark on images to discourage unauthorized duplication.

3. Issue explicit instructions to audiences prohibiting the copying or reproducing of any patient images during teaching events or presentations.

Final Thoughts

The use of clinical images is an essential component of dermatologic care, education, and research. Due to the higher demand for diverse and representative images and the dearth of images in the medical literature, many SOC images have been widely disseminated and utilized by dermatologists, raising concerns of the adequacy of informed consent for the storage and use of such material. Therefore, dermatologists should implement streamlined guidelines and consent procedures to ensure a patient’s informed consent is provided with full knowledge of how and where their images might be used and shared. Additional efforts should be made to protect patients’ privacy and unauthorized use of their images. Furthermore, we encourage our leading dermatology organizations to develop expert consensus on best practices for appropriate clinical image consent, storage, and use.

Clinical images are integral to dermatologic care, research, and education. Studies have highlighted the underrepresentation of images of skin of color (SOC) in educational materials,¹ clinical trials,² and research publications.³ Recognition of this disparity has ignited a call to action by dermatologists and dermatologic organizations to address the gap by improving the collection and use of SOC images.⁴ It is critical to remind dermatologists of the importance of properly obtaining informed consent and ensuring images are not used without a patient’s permission, as images in journal articles, conference presentations, and educational materials can be widely distributed and shared. Herein, we summarize current practices of clinical image storage and make general recommendations on how dermatologists can better protect patient privacy. Certain cultural and social factors in patients with SOC should be considered when obtaining informed consent and collecting images.

Clinical Image Acquisition

Consenting procedures are crucial components of proper image usage. However, current consenting practices are inconsistent across various platforms, including academic journals, websites, printed text, social media, and educational presentations.⁵

Current regulations for use of patient health information in the United States are governed by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)of 1996. Although this act explicitly prohibits use of “full face photographic images and any comparable images” without consent from the patient or the patient’s representative, there is less restriction regarding the use of deidentified images.⁶ Some clinicians or researchers may consider using a black bar or a masking technique over the eyes or face, but this is not always a sufficient method of anonymizing an image.

One study investigating the different requirements listed by the top 20 dermatology journals (as determined by the Google Scholar h5-index) found that while 95% (19/20) of journals stated that written or signed consent or permission was a requirement for use of patient images, only 20% (4/20) instructed authors to inform the patient or the patient’s representative that images may become available on the internet.⁵ Once an article is accepted for publication by a medical journal, it eventually may be accessible online; however, patients may not be aware of this factor, which is particularly concerning for those with SOC due to the increased demand for diverse dermatologic resources and images as well as the highly digitalized manner in which we access and share media.

Furthermore, cultural and social factors exist that present challenges to informed decision-making during the consenting process for certain SOC populations such as a lack of trust in the medical and scientific research community, inadequate comprehension of the consent material, health illiteracy, language barriers, or use of complex terminology in consent documentation.^7,8 Studies also have shown that patients in ethnic minority groups have greater barriers to health literacy compared to other patient groups, and patients with limited health literacy are less likely to ask questions during their medical visits.^9,10 Therefore, when obtaining informed consent for images, it is important that measures are taken to ensure that the patient has full knowledge and understanding of what the consent covers, including the extent to which the images will be used and/or shared and whether the patient’s confidentiality and/or anonymity are at risk.

Recommendations—We propose that dermatologists should follow these recommendations:

1. Encourage influential dermatology organizations such as the American Academy of Dermatology to establish standardized consenting procedures for image acquisition and use, including requirements to provide (a) written consent for all patient images and (b) specific details as to where and how the image may be used and/or shared.

2. Ensure that consent terminology is presented at a sixth-grade reading level or below, minimize the use of medical jargon and complex terms, and provide consent documentation in the patient’s preferred language.

3. Allow patients to take the consent document home so they can have additional time to comprehensively review the material or have it reviewed by family or friends.

4. Employ strategies such as teach-back methods and encourage questions to maximize the level of understanding during the consent process.

Clinical Image Storage

Clinical image storage procedures can have an impact on a patient’s health information remaining anonymous and confidential. In a survey evaluating medical photography use among 153 US board-certified dermatologists, 69.1% of respondents reported emailing or texting images between patients and colleagues. Additionally, 30.3% (46/152) reported having patient photographs stored on their personal phone at the time of the survey, and 39.1% (18/46) of those individuals had images that showed identifiable features, such as the patient’s face or a tattoo.¹¹

Although most providers state that their devices are password protected, it cannot be guaranteed that the device and consequently the images remain secure and inaccessible to unauthorized individuals. As sharing and viewing images continue to play an essential role in assessing disease state, progression, treatment response, and inclusion in research, we must establish and encourage clear guidelines for the storage and retention of such images.

Recommendations—We propose that dermatologists should follow these recommendations:

1. Store clinical images exclusively on password-protected devices and in password-protected files.

2. Use work-related cameras or electronic devices rather than personal devices, unless the personal device is being used to upload directly into the patient’s medical record. In such cases, use a HIPAA-compliant electronic medical record mobile application that does not store images on the application or the device itself.

3. Avoid using text-messaging systems or unencrypted email to share identifying images without clear patient consent.

Clinical Image Use

Once a thorough consenting process has been completed, it is crucial that the use and distribution of the clinical image are in accordance with the terms specified in the original consent. With the current state of technologic advancement, widespread social media usage, and constant sharing of information, adherence to these terms can be challenging. For example, an image initially intended for use in an educational presentation at a professional conference can be shared on social media if an audience member captures a photo of it. In another example, a patient may consent to their image being shown on a dermatologic website but that image can be duplicated and shared on other unauthorized sites and locations. This situation can be particularly distressing to patients whose image may include all or most of their face, an intimate area, or other physical features that they did not wish to share widely.

Individuals identifying as Black/African American, Latino/Hispanic, or Asian have been shown to express less comfort with providing permission for images of a nonidentifiable sensitive area to be taken (or obtained) or for use for teaching irrespective of identifiability compared to their White counterparts,¹² which may be due to the aforementioned lack of trust in medical providers and the health care system in general, both of which may contribute to concerns with how a clinical image is used and/or shared. Although consent from a patient or the patient’s representative can be granted, we must ensure that the use of these images adheres to the patient’s initial agreement. Ultimately, medical providers, researchers, and other parties involved in acquiring or sharing patient images have both an ethical and legal responsibility to ensure that anonymity, privacy, and confidentiality are preserved to the greatest extent possible.

Recommendations—We propose that dermatologists should follow these recommendations:

1. Display a message on websites containing patient images stating that the sharing of the images outside the established guidelines and intended use is prohibited.

2. Place a watermark on images to discourage unauthorized duplication.

3. Issue explicit instructions to audiences prohibiting the copying or reproducing of any patient images during teaching events or presentations.

Final Thoughts

The use of clinical images is an essential component of dermatologic care, education, and research. Due to the higher demand for diverse and representative images and the dearth of images in the medical literature, many SOC images have been widely disseminated and utilized by dermatologists, raising concerns of the adequacy of informed consent for the storage and use of such material. Therefore, dermatologists should implement streamlined guidelines and consent procedures to ensure a patient’s informed consent is provided with full knowledge of how and where their images might be used and shared. Additional efforts should be made to protect patients’ privacy and unauthorized use of their images. Furthermore, we encourage our leading dermatology organizations to develop expert consensus on best practices for appropriate clinical image consent, storage, and use.

An “inevitable” global surge in prostate cancer is coming, with a worldwide doubling of cases to 2.9 million and an 85% increase in deaths to nearly 700,000 by the year 2040, the Lancet Commission on Prostate Cancer warned this week.

At a meeting of urologists in Paris, the commission said that the acceleration is already underway in high-income countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom but will gain momentum in low- and medium-income countries.

Nick James, MD, lead author of The Lancet report and professor of prostate and bladder cancer research at The Institute of Cancer Research in London, said that the surge, in part, is a medical success story.

“Prostate cancer paradoxically is a problem baked into the biology. Men get prostate cancer as they age,” Dr. James told this news organization. 

“There is a big rise in the high-income countries. But we’re going to see a big rise in the number of 50-, 60-, 70-year-olds in the coming decades in the poorer countries, and with that comes more prostate cancer. High-income countries such as the UK and USA will also see smaller increases for the same reason.”

According to the report, to be presented April 6 at the 2024 European Association of Urology Congress in Paris, “The case for prostate cancer screening for all men aged 50-70 years (and all men of African origin aged 45–70 years) in high-income countries is strengthening with improved use of technologies such as MRI and growing evidence for the safety of active surveillance.”

Andrew Vickers, PhD, a biostatistician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, said that the Lancet Commission came to similar conclusions as he and an international group of researchers did in a 2023 policy paper in The BMJ. A major gap, Dr. Vickers said, is misuse of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening. 

“We found that the ubiquitous policy compromise of letting patients decide for themselves about PSA has led to the worst possible outcomes of overuse in men unlikely to benefit, high rates of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and economic and racial inequity,” Dr. Vickers said. “Our view is that PSA screening should be done well — by implementing straightforward harm-reduction strategies like restricting screening in older men and use of secondary tests before biopsy — or not at all.”

Dr. James said that undertreatment of advanced disease is widespread; only about 30%-40% of men in the United States receive combination hormone therapy for metastatic disease, for example. “Simply doing what we know works would improve outcomes,” he said.

Dr. James said that men of African ancestry are twice as likely to develop prostate cancer, but whether treatment should follow a different approach in these men is unclear. The new report stressed the need to include more men of African ancestry in research.

Brandon Mahal, MD, vice chair of research in radiation oncology the University of Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center and a coauthor of the report, said that new approaches are needed to enable earlier diagnosis of prostate cancer in men in low- to middle-income countries, where most patients present with metastatic disease and are less likely to survive for long periods.

Dr. James recommended pop-up clinics and mobile testing to encourage men who are at high risk for prostate cancer but feel well to detect lethal cancers early.

In England, for example, Dr. James helped introduce an outreach program called The Man Van which provided free health checks, including PSA tests, to high-risk men in London. 

“By bringing a van with quick and easy testing straight to men at work and in the community, and targeting those who have a higher risk of prostate cancer, we provided thousands of health checks which resulted in almost 100 cancer diagnoses in men who might otherwise have only seen a doctor once their cancer has progressed to a more advanced stage,” he said.

He noted that the medical community worldwide is ill-prepared for the onslaught of prostate cancer cases.

“The solution cannot be training more urologists, radiation oncologists, pathologists, and radiologists because it simply takes too long,” Dr. James said. However, increased use of nurses and artificial intelligence may help. “In my own hospital, biopsies are a nurse-led and -delivered service. AI is extraordinarily good at diagnosis already and will only get better,” he said.

In poorer countries, smartphones could fill gaps too. “The same technology that does face recognition already can say that’s a Gleason 7 prostate cancer,” Dr. James said. “It’s not being rolled out in countries like America of course because pathologists’ income is at risk.”

Dr. James, Dr. Vickers, and Dr. Mahal reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An “inevitable” global surge in prostate cancer is coming, with a worldwide doubling of cases to 2.9 million and an 85% increase in deaths to nearly 700,000 by the year 2040, the Lancet Commission on Prostate Cancer warned this week.

At a meeting of urologists in Paris, the commission said that the acceleration is already underway in high-income countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom but will gain momentum in low- and medium-income countries.

Nick James, MD, lead author of The Lancet report and professor of prostate and bladder cancer research at The Institute of Cancer Research in London, said that the surge, in part, is a medical success story.

“Prostate cancer paradoxically is a problem baked into the biology. Men get prostate cancer as they age,” Dr. James told this news organization. 

“There is a big rise in the high-income countries. But we’re going to see a big rise in the number of 50-, 60-, 70-year-olds in the coming decades in the poorer countries, and with that comes more prostate cancer. High-income countries such as the UK and USA will also see smaller increases for the same reason.”

According to the report, to be presented April 6 at the 2024 European Association of Urology Congress in Paris, “The case for prostate cancer screening for all men aged 50-70 years (and all men of African origin aged 45–70 years) in high-income countries is strengthening with improved use of technologies such as MRI and growing evidence for the safety of active surveillance.”

Andrew Vickers, PhD, a biostatistician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, said that the Lancet Commission came to similar conclusions as he and an international group of researchers did in a 2023 policy paper in The BMJ. A major gap, Dr. Vickers said, is misuse of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening. 

“We found that the ubiquitous policy compromise of letting patients decide for themselves about PSA has led to the worst possible outcomes of overuse in men unlikely to benefit, high rates of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and economic and racial inequity,” Dr. Vickers said. “Our view is that PSA screening should be done well — by implementing straightforward harm-reduction strategies like restricting screening in older men and use of secondary tests before biopsy — or not at all.”

Dr. James said that undertreatment of advanced disease is widespread; only about 30%-40% of men in the United States receive combination hormone therapy for metastatic disease, for example. “Simply doing what we know works would improve outcomes,” he said.

Dr. James said that men of African ancestry are twice as likely to develop prostate cancer, but whether treatment should follow a different approach in these men is unclear. The new report stressed the need to include more men of African ancestry in research.

Brandon Mahal, MD, vice chair of research in radiation oncology the University of Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center and a coauthor of the report, said that new approaches are needed to enable earlier diagnosis of prostate cancer in men in low- to middle-income countries, where most patients present with metastatic disease and are less likely to survive for long periods.

Dr. James recommended pop-up clinics and mobile testing to encourage men who are at high risk for prostate cancer but feel well to detect lethal cancers early.

In England, for example, Dr. James helped introduce an outreach program called The Man Van which provided free health checks, including PSA tests, to high-risk men in London. 

“By bringing a van with quick and easy testing straight to men at work and in the community, and targeting those who have a higher risk of prostate cancer, we provided thousands of health checks which resulted in almost 100 cancer diagnoses in men who might otherwise have only seen a doctor once their cancer has progressed to a more advanced stage,” he said.

He noted that the medical community worldwide is ill-prepared for the onslaught of prostate cancer cases.

“The solution cannot be training more urologists, radiation oncologists, pathologists, and radiologists because it simply takes too long,” Dr. James said. However, increased use of nurses and artificial intelligence may help. “In my own hospital, biopsies are a nurse-led and -delivered service. AI is extraordinarily good at diagnosis already and will only get better,” he said.

In poorer countries, smartphones could fill gaps too. “The same technology that does face recognition already can say that’s a Gleason 7 prostate cancer,” Dr. James said. “It’s not being rolled out in countries like America of course because pathologists’ income is at risk.”

Dr. James, Dr. Vickers, and Dr. Mahal reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

An “inevitable” global surge in prostate cancer is coming, with a worldwide doubling of cases to 2.9 million and an 85% increase in deaths to nearly 700,000 by the year 2040, the Lancet Commission on Prostate Cancer warned this week.

At a meeting of urologists in Paris, the commission said that the acceleration is already underway in high-income countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom but will gain momentum in low- and medium-income countries.

Nick James, MD, lead author of The Lancet report and professor of prostate and bladder cancer research at The Institute of Cancer Research in London, said that the surge, in part, is a medical success story.

“Prostate cancer paradoxically is a problem baked into the biology. Men get prostate cancer as they age,” Dr. James told this news organization. 

“There is a big rise in the high-income countries. But we’re going to see a big rise in the number of 50-, 60-, 70-year-olds in the coming decades in the poorer countries, and with that comes more prostate cancer. High-income countries such as the UK and USA will also see smaller increases for the same reason.”

According to the report, to be presented April 6 at the 2024 European Association of Urology Congress in Paris, “The case for prostate cancer screening for all men aged 50-70 years (and all men of African origin aged 45–70 years) in high-income countries is strengthening with improved use of technologies such as MRI and growing evidence for the safety of active surveillance.”

Andrew Vickers, PhD, a biostatistician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, said that the Lancet Commission came to similar conclusions as he and an international group of researchers did in a 2023 policy paper in The BMJ. A major gap, Dr. Vickers said, is misuse of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening. 

“We found that the ubiquitous policy compromise of letting patients decide for themselves about PSA has led to the worst possible outcomes of overuse in men unlikely to benefit, high rates of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and economic and racial inequity,” Dr. Vickers said. “Our view is that PSA screening should be done well — by implementing straightforward harm-reduction strategies like restricting screening in older men and use of secondary tests before biopsy — or not at all.”

Dr. James said that undertreatment of advanced disease is widespread; only about 30%-40% of men in the United States receive combination hormone therapy for metastatic disease, for example. “Simply doing what we know works would improve outcomes,” he said.

Dr. James said that men of African ancestry are twice as likely to develop prostate cancer, but whether treatment should follow a different approach in these men is unclear. The new report stressed the need to include more men of African ancestry in research.

Brandon Mahal, MD, vice chair of research in radiation oncology the University of Miami Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center and a coauthor of the report, said that new approaches are needed to enable earlier diagnosis of prostate cancer in men in low- to middle-income countries, where most patients present with metastatic disease and are less likely to survive for long periods.

Dr. James recommended pop-up clinics and mobile testing to encourage men who are at high risk for prostate cancer but feel well to detect lethal cancers early.

In England, for example, Dr. James helped introduce an outreach program called The Man Van which provided free health checks, including PSA tests, to high-risk men in London. 

“By bringing a van with quick and easy testing straight to men at work and in the community, and targeting those who have a higher risk of prostate cancer, we provided thousands of health checks which resulted in almost 100 cancer diagnoses in men who might otherwise have only seen a doctor once their cancer has progressed to a more advanced stage,” he said.

He noted that the medical community worldwide is ill-prepared for the onslaught of prostate cancer cases.

“The solution cannot be training more urologists, radiation oncologists, pathologists, and radiologists because it simply takes too long,” Dr. James said. However, increased use of nurses and artificial intelligence may help. “In my own hospital, biopsies are a nurse-led and -delivered service. AI is extraordinarily good at diagnosis already and will only get better,” he said.

In poorer countries, smartphones could fill gaps too. “The same technology that does face recognition already can say that’s a Gleason 7 prostate cancer,” Dr. James said. “It’s not being rolled out in countries like America of course because pathologists’ income is at risk.”

Dr. James, Dr. Vickers, and Dr. Mahal reported no relevant financial conflicts of interest. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — In the opinion of Patricia A. Treadwell, MD, providing health equity in dermatology means providing support for everyone, regardless of their financial circumstances or their skin color.

It also means embracing diversity, which she defined as diversity of thinking. “If you look at the literature, diversity in higher education and health profession training settings is associated with better educational outcomes for all students,” Dr. Treadwell, professor emeritus of dermatology and pediatrics at Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, said in a presentation on health equity during the plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “Each person brings a variety of experiences and perspectives. This provides a wide range of opinions and different ways to look at things. Racial and ethnic minority providers can help health organization reduce cultural and linguistic barriers and improve cultural competence.”

Dr. Treadwell

Such efforts matter, she continued, because according to the United States Census, Black individuals make up 13.6% of the population, while Latinx individuals represent 19.1% of the population. “So, melanin matters,” she said. “If you look at a dermatology textbook, a high percentage [of cases] are identified as Caucasian individuals, which results in an overrepresentation of Caucasians in photographs. That can result in delayed or missed diagnoses [in different skin types]. If you are contributing to cases in textbooks, make sure you have a variety of different skin types so that individuals who are referring to the textbooks will be more equipped.”

Practicing dermatologists can support diversity by offering opportunities to underrepresented in medicine (URM) students, “African-American students, Hispanic students, and Native American students,” said Dr. Treadwell, who was chief of pediatric dermatology at Riley Hospital for Children in Indianapolis from 1987 to 2004. “You also want to be encouraging,” she said.

Dermatologists can also support diversity by providing precepting opportunities, “because many [medical] students may not have connections and networks. Providing those opportunities is important,” she said. Another way to help is to be a mentor to young dermatologists. “I certainly have had mentors in my career who have been very helpful,” she said. “They’ve given me advice about things I was not familiar with.”

Dr. Treadwell suggested the Skin of Color Society as an organization that can assist with networking, mentoring, and research efforts. She also cited the Society for Pediatric Dermatology’s Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Committee, formed in 2020. One of its initiatives was assembling a special issue of Pediatric Dermatology dedicated to DEI issues, which was published in November 2021.

Dr. Treadwell concluded her presentation by encouraging dermatologists to find ways to care for uninsured or underinsured patients, particularly those with skin of color. This might involve work at a county hospital “to provide access, to serve the patients ... and helping to decrease some the issues in terms of health equity,” she said.

Dr. Treadwell reported having no relevant disclosures. At the plenary session, she presented the John Kenney Jr., MD Lifetime Achievement Award and Lectureship.

SAN DIEGO — In the opinion of Patricia A. Treadwell, MD, providing health equity in dermatology means providing support for everyone, regardless of their financial circumstances or their skin color.

It also means embracing diversity, which she defined as diversity of thinking. “If you look at the literature, diversity in higher education and health profession training settings is associated with better educational outcomes for all students,” Dr. Treadwell, professor emeritus of dermatology and pediatrics at Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, said in a presentation on health equity during the plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “Each person brings a variety of experiences and perspectives. This provides a wide range of opinions and different ways to look at things. Racial and ethnic minority providers can help health organization reduce cultural and linguistic barriers and improve cultural competence.”

Dr. Treadwell

Such efforts matter, she continued, because according to the United States Census, Black individuals make up 13.6% of the population, while Latinx individuals represent 19.1% of the population. “So, melanin matters,” she said. “If you look at a dermatology textbook, a high percentage [of cases] are identified as Caucasian individuals, which results in an overrepresentation of Caucasians in photographs. That can result in delayed or missed diagnoses [in different skin types]. If you are contributing to cases in textbooks, make sure you have a variety of different skin types so that individuals who are referring to the textbooks will be more equipped.”

Practicing dermatologists can support diversity by offering opportunities to underrepresented in medicine (URM) students, “African-American students, Hispanic students, and Native American students,” said Dr. Treadwell, who was chief of pediatric dermatology at Riley Hospital for Children in Indianapolis from 1987 to 2004. “You also want to be encouraging,” she said.

Dermatologists can also support diversity by providing precepting opportunities, “because many [medical] students may not have connections and networks. Providing those opportunities is important,” she said. Another way to help is to be a mentor to young dermatologists. “I certainly have had mentors in my career who have been very helpful,” she said. “They’ve given me advice about things I was not familiar with.”

Dr. Treadwell suggested the Skin of Color Society as an organization that can assist with networking, mentoring, and research efforts. She also cited the Society for Pediatric Dermatology’s Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Committee, formed in 2020. One of its initiatives was assembling a special issue of Pediatric Dermatology dedicated to DEI issues, which was published in November 2021.

Dr. Treadwell concluded her presentation by encouraging dermatologists to find ways to care for uninsured or underinsured patients, particularly those with skin of color. This might involve work at a county hospital “to provide access, to serve the patients ... and helping to decrease some the issues in terms of health equity,” she said.

Dr. Treadwell reported having no relevant disclosures. At the plenary session, she presented the John Kenney Jr., MD Lifetime Achievement Award and Lectureship.

SAN DIEGO — In the opinion of Patricia A. Treadwell, MD, providing health equity in dermatology means providing support for everyone, regardless of their financial circumstances or their skin color.

It also means embracing diversity, which she defined as diversity of thinking. “If you look at the literature, diversity in higher education and health profession training settings is associated with better educational outcomes for all students,” Dr. Treadwell, professor emeritus of dermatology and pediatrics at Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, said in a presentation on health equity during the plenary session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “Each person brings a variety of experiences and perspectives. This provides a wide range of opinions and different ways to look at things. Racial and ethnic minority providers can help health organization reduce cultural and linguistic barriers and improve cultural competence.”

Dr. Treadwell

Such efforts matter, she continued, because according to the United States Census, Black individuals make up 13.6% of the population, while Latinx individuals represent 19.1% of the population. “So, melanin matters,” she said. “If you look at a dermatology textbook, a high percentage [of cases] are identified as Caucasian individuals, which results in an overrepresentation of Caucasians in photographs. That can result in delayed or missed diagnoses [in different skin types]. If you are contributing to cases in textbooks, make sure you have a variety of different skin types so that individuals who are referring to the textbooks will be more equipped.”

Practicing dermatologists can support diversity by offering opportunities to underrepresented in medicine (URM) students, “African-American students, Hispanic students, and Native American students,” said Dr. Treadwell, who was chief of pediatric dermatology at Riley Hospital for Children in Indianapolis from 1987 to 2004. “You also want to be encouraging,” she said.

Dermatologists can also support diversity by providing precepting opportunities, “because many [medical] students may not have connections and networks. Providing those opportunities is important,” she said. Another way to help is to be a mentor to young dermatologists. “I certainly have had mentors in my career who have been very helpful,” she said. “They’ve given me advice about things I was not familiar with.”

Dr. Treadwell suggested the Skin of Color Society as an organization that can assist with networking, mentoring, and research efforts. She also cited the Society for Pediatric Dermatology’s Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Committee, formed in 2020. One of its initiatives was assembling a special issue of Pediatric Dermatology dedicated to DEI issues, which was published in November 2021.

Dr. Treadwell concluded her presentation by encouraging dermatologists to find ways to care for uninsured or underinsured patients, particularly those with skin of color. This might involve work at a county hospital “to provide access, to serve the patients ... and helping to decrease some the issues in terms of health equity,” she said.

Dr. Treadwell reported having no relevant disclosures. At the plenary session, she presented the John Kenney Jr., MD Lifetime Achievement Award and Lectureship.

To the Editor:

Cases of primary varicella-zoster virus (VZV) are relatively uncommon in the United States since the introduction of the varicella vaccine in 1995, with an overall decline in cases of more than 97%.¹ Prior to the vaccine, 70% of hospitalizations occurred in children; subsequently, hospitalizations among the pediatric population (aged ≤20 years) declined by 97%. Compared to children, adults and immunocompromised patients with VZV infection may present with more severe disease and experience more complications.¹

Most children in the United States are vaccinated against VZV, with 90.3% receiving at least 1 dose by 24 months of age.² However, many countries do not implement universal varicella vaccination for infants.³ As a result, physicians should remember to include primary varicella in the differential when clinically correlated, especially when evaluating patients who have immigrated to the United States or who may be living in unvaccinated communities. We report 2 cases of primary VZV manifesting in adults to remind readers of the salient clinical features of this disease and how dermatologists play a critical role in early and accurate identification of diseases that can have wide-reaching public health implications.

A 26-year-old man with no relevant medical history presented to the emergency department with an itchy and painful rash of 5 days’ duration that began on the trunk and spread to the face, lips, feet, hands, arms, and legs. He also reported shortness of breath, cough, and chills, and he had a temperature of 100.8 °F (38.2 °C). Physical examination revealed numerous erythematous papules and vesiculopustules, some with central umbilication and some with overlying gold crusts (Figure 1).

Later that day, a 47-year-old man with no relevant medical history presented to the same emergency department with a rash along with self-reported fever and sore throat of 3 days’ duration. Physical examination found innumerable erythematous vesicopustules scattered on the face, scalp, neck, trunk, arms, and legs, some with a “dew drop on a rose petal” appearance and some with overlying hemorrhagic crust (Figure 2).

Although infection was of primary concern for the first patient, the presentation of the second patient prompted specific concern for primary VZV infection in both patients, who were placed on airborne and contact isolation precautions.

Skin biopsies from both patients showed acantholytic blisters, hair follicle necrosis, and marked dermal inflammation (Figure 3). Herpetic viral changes were seen in keratinocytes, with steel-grey nuclei, multinucleated keratinocytes, and chromatin margination. An immunostain for VZV was diffusely positive, and VZV antibody IgG was positive (Figure 4).

Upon additional questioning, both patients reported recent exposure to VZV-like illnesses in family members without a history of international travel. Neither of the patients was sure of their vaccination status or prior infection history. Both patients received intravenous acyclovir 10 mg/kg administered every 8 hours. Both patients experienced improvement and were discharged after 3 days on oral valacyclovir (1 g 3 times daily for a 7-day treatment course).

The similar presentation and timing of these 2 VZV cases caused concern for an unidentified community outbreak. The infection control team was notified; additionally, per hospital protocol the state health department was alerted as well as the clinicians and staff of the hospital with a request to be vigilant for further cases.

Despite high vaccination rates in the United States, outbreaks of varicella still occur, particularly among unvaccinated individuals, and a robust and efficient response is necessary to control the spread of such outbreaks.⁴ Many states, including Arkansas where our cases occurred, have laws mandating report of VZV cases to the department of health.⁵ Dermatologists play an important role in reporting cases, aiding in diagnosis through recognition of the physical examination findings, obtaining appropriate biopsy, and recommending additional laboratory testing.

Typical skin manifestations include a pruritic rash of macules, papules, vesicles, and crusted lesions distributed throughout the trunk, face, arms, and legs. Because new lesions appear over several days, they will be in different stages of healing, resulting in the simultaneous presence of papules, vesicles, and crusted lesions.⁶ This unique characteristic helps distinguish VZV from other skin diseases such as smallpox or mpox (monkeypox), which generally show lesions in similar stages of evolution.

Biopsy also can aid in identification. Viruses in the herpes family reveal similar histopathologic characteristics, including acantholysis and vesicle formation, intranuclear inclusions with margination of chromatin, multinucleation, and nuclear molding.⁷ Immunohistochemistry can be used to differentiate VZV from herpes simplex virus; however, neither microscopic examination nor immunohistochemistry distinguish primary VZV infection from herpes zoster (HZ).⁸

The mpox rash progresses more slowly than a VZV rash and has a centrifugal rather than central distribution that can involve the palms and soles. Lymphadenopathy is a characteristic finding in mpox.⁹ Rickettsialpox is distinguished from VZV primarily by the appearance of brown or black eschar after the original papulovesicular lesions dry out.¹⁰ Atypical hand, foot, and mouth disease can manifest in adults as widespread papulovesicular lesions. This form is associated with coxsackievirus A6 and may require direct fluorescent antibody assay or polymerase chain reaction of keratinocytes to rule out VZV.¹¹

Herpes zoster occurs in older adults with a history of primary VZV.⁶ It manifests as vesicular lesions confined to 1 or 2 adjacent dermatomes vs the diffuse spread of VZV over the entire body. However, HZ can become disseminated in immunocompromised individuals, making it difficult to clinically distinguish from VZV.⁶ Serology can be helpful, as high IgM titers indicate an acute primary VZV infection. Subsequently increased IgG titers steadily wane over time and spike during reactivation.¹²

Dermatology and infectious disease consultations in our cases yielded a preliminary diagnosis through physical examination that was confirmed by biopsy and subsequent laboratory testing, which allowed for a swift response by the infection control team including isolation precautions to control a potential outbreak. Patients with VZV should remain in respiratory isolation until all lesions have crusted over.⁶

Individuals who had face-to-face indoor contact for at least 5 minutes or who shared a living space with an infected individual should be assessed for VZV immunity, which is defined as confirmed prior immunization or infection.^5,13 Lack of VZV immunity requires postexposure prophylaxis—active immunization for the immunocompetent and passive immunization for the immunocompromised.¹³ Ultimately, no additional cases were reported in the community where our patients resided.

Immunocompetent children with primary VZV require supportive care only. Oral antiviral therapy is the treatment of choice for immunocompetent adults or anyone at increased risk for complications, while intravenous antivirals are recommended for the immunocompromised or those with VZV-related complications.¹⁴ A similar approach is used for HZ. Uncomplicated cases are treated with oral antivirals, and complicated cases (eg, HZ ophthalmicus) are treated with intravenous antivirals.¹⁵ Commonly used antivirals include acyclovir, valacyclovir, and famciclovir.¹⁴

Our cases highlight the ongoing risk for varicella outbreaks in unvaccinated or undervaccinated communities. Physician vigilance is necessary, and dermatology plays a particularly important role in swift and accurate detection of VZV, as demonstrated in our cases by the recognition of classic physical examination findings of erythematous and vesicular papules in each of the patients. Because primary VZV infection can result in life-threatening complications including hepatitis, encephalitis, and pancreatitis, prompt identification and initiation of therapy is important.⁶ Similarly, quick notification of public health officials about detected primary VZV cases is vital to containing potential community outbreaks.

To the Editor:

Cases of primary varicella-zoster virus (VZV) are relatively uncommon in the United States since the introduction of the varicella vaccine in 1995, with an overall decline in cases of more than 97%.¹ Prior to the vaccine, 70% of hospitalizations occurred in children; subsequently, hospitalizations among the pediatric population (aged ≤20 years) declined by 97%. Compared to children, adults and immunocompromised patients with VZV infection may present with more severe disease and experience more complications.¹

Most children in the United States are vaccinated against VZV, with 90.3% receiving at least 1 dose by 24 months of age.² However, many countries do not implement universal varicella vaccination for infants.³ As a result, physicians should remember to include primary varicella in the differential when clinically correlated, especially when evaluating patients who have immigrated to the United States or who may be living in unvaccinated communities. We report 2 cases of primary VZV manifesting in adults to remind readers of the salient clinical features of this disease and how dermatologists play a critical role in early and accurate identification of diseases that can have wide-reaching public health implications.

A 26-year-old man with no relevant medical history presented to the emergency department with an itchy and painful rash of 5 days’ duration that began on the trunk and spread to the face, lips, feet, hands, arms, and legs. He also reported shortness of breath, cough, and chills, and he had a temperature of 100.8 °F (38.2 °C). Physical examination revealed numerous erythematous papules and vesiculopustules, some with central umbilication and some with overlying gold crusts (Figure 1).

Later that day, a 47-year-old man with no relevant medical history presented to the same emergency department with a rash along with self-reported fever and sore throat of 3 days’ duration. Physical examination found innumerable erythematous vesicopustules scattered on the face, scalp, neck, trunk, arms, and legs, some with a “dew drop on a rose petal” appearance and some with overlying hemorrhagic crust (Figure 2).

Although infection was of primary concern for the first patient, the presentation of the second patient prompted specific concern for primary VZV infection in both patients, who were placed on airborne and contact isolation precautions.

Skin biopsies from both patients showed acantholytic blisters, hair follicle necrosis, and marked dermal inflammation (Figure 3). Herpetic viral changes were seen in keratinocytes, with steel-grey nuclei, multinucleated keratinocytes, and chromatin margination. An immunostain for VZV was diffusely positive, and VZV antibody IgG was positive (Figure 4).

Upon additional questioning, both patients reported recent exposure to VZV-like illnesses in family members without a history of international travel. Neither of the patients was sure of their vaccination status or prior infection history. Both patients received intravenous acyclovir 10 mg/kg administered every 8 hours. Both patients experienced improvement and were discharged after 3 days on oral valacyclovir (1 g 3 times daily for a 7-day treatment course).

The similar presentation and timing of these 2 VZV cases caused concern for an unidentified community outbreak. The infection control team was notified; additionally, per hospital protocol the state health department was alerted as well as the clinicians and staff of the hospital with a request to be vigilant for further cases.

Despite high vaccination rates in the United States, outbreaks of varicella still occur, particularly among unvaccinated individuals, and a robust and efficient response is necessary to control the spread of such outbreaks.⁴ Many states, including Arkansas where our cases occurred, have laws mandating report of VZV cases to the department of health.⁵ Dermatologists play an important role in reporting cases, aiding in diagnosis through recognition of the physical examination findings, obtaining appropriate biopsy, and recommending additional laboratory testing.

Typical skin manifestations include a pruritic rash of macules, papules, vesicles, and crusted lesions distributed throughout the trunk, face, arms, and legs. Because new lesions appear over several days, they will be in different stages of healing, resulting in the simultaneous presence of papules, vesicles, and crusted lesions.⁶ This unique characteristic helps distinguish VZV from other skin diseases such as smallpox or mpox (monkeypox), which generally show lesions in similar stages of evolution.

Biopsy also can aid in identification. Viruses in the herpes family reveal similar histopathologic characteristics, including acantholysis and vesicle formation, intranuclear inclusions with margination of chromatin, multinucleation, and nuclear molding.⁷ Immunohistochemistry can be used to differentiate VZV from herpes simplex virus; however, neither microscopic examination nor immunohistochemistry distinguish primary VZV infection from herpes zoster (HZ).⁸

The mpox rash progresses more slowly than a VZV rash and has a centrifugal rather than central distribution that can involve the palms and soles. Lymphadenopathy is a characteristic finding in mpox.⁹ Rickettsialpox is distinguished from VZV primarily by the appearance of brown or black eschar after the original papulovesicular lesions dry out.¹⁰ Atypical hand, foot, and mouth disease can manifest in adults as widespread papulovesicular lesions. This form is associated with coxsackievirus A6 and may require direct fluorescent antibody assay or polymerase chain reaction of keratinocytes to rule out VZV.¹¹

Herpes zoster occurs in older adults with a history of primary VZV.⁶ It manifests as vesicular lesions confined to 1 or 2 adjacent dermatomes vs the diffuse spread of VZV over the entire body. However, HZ can become disseminated in immunocompromised individuals, making it difficult to clinically distinguish from VZV.⁶ Serology can be helpful, as high IgM titers indicate an acute primary VZV infection. Subsequently increased IgG titers steadily wane over time and spike during reactivation.¹²

Dermatology and infectious disease consultations in our cases yielded a preliminary diagnosis through physical examination that was confirmed by biopsy and subsequent laboratory testing, which allowed for a swift response by the infection control team including isolation precautions to control a potential outbreak. Patients with VZV should remain in respiratory isolation until all lesions have crusted over.⁶

Individuals who had face-to-face indoor contact for at least 5 minutes or who shared a living space with an infected individual should be assessed for VZV immunity, which is defined as confirmed prior immunization or infection.^5,13 Lack of VZV immunity requires postexposure prophylaxis—active immunization for the immunocompetent and passive immunization for the immunocompromised.¹³ Ultimately, no additional cases were reported in the community where our patients resided.

Immunocompetent children with primary VZV require supportive care only. Oral antiviral therapy is the treatment of choice for immunocompetent adults or anyone at increased risk for complications, while intravenous antivirals are recommended for the immunocompromised or those with VZV-related complications.¹⁴ A similar approach is used for HZ. Uncomplicated cases are treated with oral antivirals, and complicated cases (eg, HZ ophthalmicus) are treated with intravenous antivirals.¹⁵ Commonly used antivirals include acyclovir, valacyclovir, and famciclovir.¹⁴

Our cases highlight the ongoing risk for varicella outbreaks in unvaccinated or undervaccinated communities. Physician vigilance is necessary, and dermatology plays a particularly important role in swift and accurate detection of VZV, as demonstrated in our cases by the recognition of classic physical examination findings of erythematous and vesicular papules in each of the patients. Because primary VZV infection can result in life-threatening complications including hepatitis, encephalitis, and pancreatitis, prompt identification and initiation of therapy is important.⁶ Similarly, quick notification of public health officials about detected primary VZV cases is vital to containing potential community outbreaks.

To the Editor:

Cases of primary varicella-zoster virus (VZV) are relatively uncommon in the United States since the introduction of the varicella vaccine in 1995, with an overall decline in cases of more than 97%.¹ Prior to the vaccine, 70% of hospitalizations occurred in children; subsequently, hospitalizations among the pediatric population (aged ≤20 years) declined by 97%. Compared to children, adults and immunocompromised patients with VZV infection may present with more severe disease and experience more complications.¹

Most children in the United States are vaccinated against VZV, with 90.3% receiving at least 1 dose by 24 months of age.² However, many countries do not implement universal varicella vaccination for infants.³ As a result, physicians should remember to include primary varicella in the differential when clinically correlated, especially when evaluating patients who have immigrated to the United States or who may be living in unvaccinated communities. We report 2 cases of primary VZV manifesting in adults to remind readers of the salient clinical features of this disease and how dermatologists play a critical role in early and accurate identification of diseases that can have wide-reaching public health implications.

A 26-year-old man with no relevant medical history presented to the emergency department with an itchy and painful rash of 5 days’ duration that began on the trunk and spread to the face, lips, feet, hands, arms, and legs. He also reported shortness of breath, cough, and chills, and he had a temperature of 100.8 °F (38.2 °C). Physical examination revealed numerous erythematous papules and vesiculopustules, some with central umbilication and some with overlying gold crusts (Figure 1).

Later that day, a 47-year-old man with no relevant medical history presented to the same emergency department with a rash along with self-reported fever and sore throat of 3 days’ duration. Physical examination found innumerable erythematous vesicopustules scattered on the face, scalp, neck, trunk, arms, and legs, some with a “dew drop on a rose petal” appearance and some with overlying hemorrhagic crust (Figure 2).

Although infection was of primary concern for the first patient, the presentation of the second patient prompted specific concern for primary VZV infection in both patients, who were placed on airborne and contact isolation precautions.

Skin biopsies from both patients showed acantholytic blisters, hair follicle necrosis, and marked dermal inflammation (Figure 3). Herpetic viral changes were seen in keratinocytes, with steel-grey nuclei, multinucleated keratinocytes, and chromatin margination. An immunostain for VZV was diffusely positive, and VZV antibody IgG was positive (Figure 4).

Upon additional questioning, both patients reported recent exposure to VZV-like illnesses in family members without a history of international travel. Neither of the patients was sure of their vaccination status or prior infection history. Both patients received intravenous acyclovir 10 mg/kg administered every 8 hours. Both patients experienced improvement and were discharged after 3 days on oral valacyclovir (1 g 3 times daily for a 7-day treatment course).

The similar presentation and timing of these 2 VZV cases caused concern for an unidentified community outbreak. The infection control team was notified; additionally, per hospital protocol the state health department was alerted as well as the clinicians and staff of the hospital with a request to be vigilant for further cases.

Despite high vaccination rates in the United States, outbreaks of varicella still occur, particularly among unvaccinated individuals, and a robust and efficient response is necessary to control the spread of such outbreaks.⁴ Many states, including Arkansas where our cases occurred, have laws mandating report of VZV cases to the department of health.⁵ Dermatologists play an important role in reporting cases, aiding in diagnosis through recognition of the physical examination findings, obtaining appropriate biopsy, and recommending additional laboratory testing.

Typical skin manifestations include a pruritic rash of macules, papules, vesicles, and crusted lesions distributed throughout the trunk, face, arms, and legs. Because new lesions appear over several days, they will be in different stages of healing, resulting in the simultaneous presence of papules, vesicles, and crusted lesions.⁶ This unique characteristic helps distinguish VZV from other skin diseases such as smallpox or mpox (monkeypox), which generally show lesions in similar stages of evolution.

Biopsy also can aid in identification. Viruses in the herpes family reveal similar histopathologic characteristics, including acantholysis and vesicle formation, intranuclear inclusions with margination of chromatin, multinucleation, and nuclear molding.⁷ Immunohistochemistry can be used to differentiate VZV from herpes simplex virus; however, neither microscopic examination nor immunohistochemistry distinguish primary VZV infection from herpes zoster (HZ).⁸

The mpox rash progresses more slowly than a VZV rash and has a centrifugal rather than central distribution that can involve the palms and soles. Lymphadenopathy is a characteristic finding in mpox.⁹ Rickettsialpox is distinguished from VZV primarily by the appearance of brown or black eschar after the original papulovesicular lesions dry out.¹⁰ Atypical hand, foot, and mouth disease can manifest in adults as widespread papulovesicular lesions. This form is associated with coxsackievirus A6 and may require direct fluorescent antibody assay or polymerase chain reaction of keratinocytes to rule out VZV.¹¹

Herpes zoster occurs in older adults with a history of primary VZV.⁶ It manifests as vesicular lesions confined to 1 or 2 adjacent dermatomes vs the diffuse spread of VZV over the entire body. However, HZ can become disseminated in immunocompromised individuals, making it difficult to clinically distinguish from VZV.⁶ Serology can be helpful, as high IgM titers indicate an acute primary VZV infection. Subsequently increased IgG titers steadily wane over time and spike during reactivation.¹²

Dermatology and infectious disease consultations in our cases yielded a preliminary diagnosis through physical examination that was confirmed by biopsy and subsequent laboratory testing, which allowed for a swift response by the infection control team including isolation precautions to control a potential outbreak. Patients with VZV should remain in respiratory isolation until all lesions have crusted over.⁶

Individuals who had face-to-face indoor contact for at least 5 minutes or who shared a living space with an infected individual should be assessed for VZV immunity, which is defined as confirmed prior immunization or infection.^5,13 Lack of VZV immunity requires postexposure prophylaxis—active immunization for the immunocompetent and passive immunization for the immunocompromised.¹³ Ultimately, no additional cases were reported in the community where our patients resided.

Immunocompetent children with primary VZV require supportive care only. Oral antiviral therapy is the treatment of choice for immunocompetent adults or anyone at increased risk for complications, while intravenous antivirals are recommended for the immunocompromised or those with VZV-related complications.¹⁴ A similar approach is used for HZ. Uncomplicated cases are treated with oral antivirals, and complicated cases (eg, HZ ophthalmicus) are treated with intravenous antivirals.¹⁵ Commonly used antivirals include acyclovir, valacyclovir, and famciclovir.¹⁴

Our cases highlight the ongoing risk for varicella outbreaks in unvaccinated or undervaccinated communities. Physician vigilance is necessary, and dermatology plays a particularly important role in swift and accurate detection of VZV, as demonstrated in our cases by the recognition of classic physical examination findings of erythematous and vesicular papules in each of the patients. Because primary VZV infection can result in life-threatening complications including hepatitis, encephalitis, and pancreatitis, prompt identification and initiation of therapy is important.⁶ Similarly, quick notification of public health officials about detected primary VZV cases is vital to containing potential community outbreaks.

Disparities and geographical variations in cervical cancer outcomes appear to be related to social determinants of health, including socioeconomic status, race or ethnicity, and proximity to facilities skilled at early-stage diagnosis and treatment.

These findings come from analyses of insurance data gathered via the Cervical Cancer Geo-Analyzer tool, a publicly available online instrument designed to provide visual representation of recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer burden across metropolitan statistical areas in the United States over multiple years.

[Reporting the findings of] “this study is the first step to optimize healthcare resources allocations, advocate for policy changes that will minimize access barriers, and tailor education for modern treatment options to help reduce and improve outcomes for cervical cancer in US patients,” said Tara Castellano, MD, an author and presenter of this new research, at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, held in San Diego.

Seeing Cancer Cases

Dr. Castellano and colleagues previously reported that the Geo-Analyzer tool effectively provides quantified evidence of cervical cancer disease burden and graphic representation of geographical variations across the United States for both incident and recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer.

In the current analysis, Dr. Castellano, of Louisiana State University School of Medicine in New Orleans, discussed potential factors related to cervical cancer incidence and geographic variations.

The study builds on previous studies that have shown that Black and Hispanic women have longer time to treatment and worse cervical cancer outcomes than White women.

For example, in a study published in the International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer, Marilyn Huang, MD, and colleagues from the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, and other centers in Miami looked at time to treatment in a diverse population of 274 women starting therapy for cervical cancer.

They found that insurance type (private, public, or none) contributed to delay in treatment initiation regardless of the treatment modality, and that the patient’s language and institution of diagnosis also influenced time to treatment.

In a separate scientific poster presented at SGO 2024, Dr. Castellano and colleagues reported that, among women with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer, the median time to treatment was 7 days longer for both Hispanic and Black women, compared with non-Hispanic White women. In addition, Black women had a 7-day longer time to receiving their first therapy for advanced disease. All of these differences were statistically significant.

Dr. Castellano told this news organization that the time-to-treatment disparities in the endometrial cancer study were determined by diagnostic codes and the timing of insurance claims.

Reasons for the disparities may include more limited access to care and structural and systemic biases in the healthcare systems where the majority of Black and Hispanic patients live, she said.

Insurance Database

In the new study on cervical cancer, Dr. Castellano and her team defined cervical cancer burden as prevalent cervical cancer diagnosis per 100,000 eligible women enrolled in a commercial insurance plan, Medicaid, or Medicare Advantage. Recurrent or metastatic cancer was determined to be the proportion of patients with cervical cancer who initiated systemic therapy.

The goals of the study were to provide a visualization of geographical distribution of cervical cancer in the US, and to quantify associations between early or advanced cancers with screening rates, poverty level, race/ethnicity, and access to brachytherapy.

The administrative claims database queried for the study included information on 75,521 women (median age 53) with a first diagnosis of cervical cancer from 2015 through 2022, and 14,033 women with recurrent or metastatic malignancies (median age 59 years).

Distribution of cases was higher in the South compared with in other US regions (37% vs approximately 20% for other regions).

Looking at the association between screening rates and disease burden from 2017 through 2022, the Geo-Analyzer showed that higher screening rates were significantly associated with decreased burden of new cases only in the South, whereas higher screening rates were associated with lower recurrent/metastatic disease burden in the Midwest and South, but a higher disease burden in the West.

In all regions, there was a significant association between decreased early cancer burden in areas with high percentages of women of Asian heritage, and significantly increased burden in areas with large populations of women of Hispanic origin.

The only significant association of race/ethnicity with recurrent/metastatic burden was a decrease in the Midwest in populations with large Asian populations.

An analysis of the how poverty levels affected screening and disease burden showed that in areas with a high percentage of low-income households there were significant associations with decreased cervical cancer screening and higher burden of newly diagnosed cases.

Poverty levels were significantly associated with recurrent/metastatic cancers only in the South.

The investigators also found that the presence of one or more brachytherapy centers within a ZIP-3 region (that is, a large geographic area designated by the first 3 digits of ZIP codes rather than 5-digit city codes) was associated with a 2.7% reduction in recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer burden (P less than .001).

Demographic Marker?

Reasons for disparities are complex and may involve a combination of inadequate health literacy and social and economic circumstances, said Cesar Castro, MD, commenting on the new cervical cancer study.

He noted in an interview that “the concept that a single Pap smear is often insufficient to capture precancerous changes, and hence the need for serial testing every 3 years, can be lost on individuals who also have competing challenges securing paychecks and/or dependent care. Historical barriers such as perceptions of the underlying cause of cervical cancer, the HPV virus, being a sexually transmitted disease and hence a taboo subject, also underpin decision-making. These sentiments have also fueled resistance towards HPV vaccination in young girls and boys.”

Dr. Castro, who is Program Director for Gynecologic Oncology at the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, pointed out that treatments for cervical cancer often involve surgery or a combination of chemotherapy and radiation, and that side effects from these interventions may be especially disruptive to the lives of women who are breadwinners or caregivers for their families.

“These are the shackles that poverty places on many Black and Hispanic women notably in under-resourced regions domestically and globally,” he said.

The study was supported by Seagen and Genmab. Dr. Castellano disclosed consulting fees from GSK and Nykode and grant support from BMS. Dr. Castro reported no relevant conflicts of interest and was not involved in either of the studies presented at the meeting.

Disparities and geographical variations in cervical cancer outcomes appear to be related to social determinants of health, including socioeconomic status, race or ethnicity, and proximity to facilities skilled at early-stage diagnosis and treatment.

These findings come from analyses of insurance data gathered via the Cervical Cancer Geo-Analyzer tool, a publicly available online instrument designed to provide visual representation of recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer burden across metropolitan statistical areas in the United States over multiple years.

[Reporting the findings of] “this study is the first step to optimize healthcare resources allocations, advocate for policy changes that will minimize access barriers, and tailor education for modern treatment options to help reduce and improve outcomes for cervical cancer in US patients,” said Tara Castellano, MD, an author and presenter of this new research, at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, held in San Diego.

Seeing Cancer Cases

Dr. Castellano and colleagues previously reported that the Geo-Analyzer tool effectively provides quantified evidence of cervical cancer disease burden and graphic representation of geographical variations across the United States for both incident and recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer.

In the current analysis, Dr. Castellano, of Louisiana State University School of Medicine in New Orleans, discussed potential factors related to cervical cancer incidence and geographic variations.

The study builds on previous studies that have shown that Black and Hispanic women have longer time to treatment and worse cervical cancer outcomes than White women.

For example, in a study published in the International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer, Marilyn Huang, MD, and colleagues from the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, and other centers in Miami looked at time to treatment in a diverse population of 274 women starting therapy for cervical cancer.

They found that insurance type (private, public, or none) contributed to delay in treatment initiation regardless of the treatment modality, and that the patient’s language and institution of diagnosis also influenced time to treatment.

In a separate scientific poster presented at SGO 2024, Dr. Castellano and colleagues reported that, among women with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer, the median time to treatment was 7 days longer for both Hispanic and Black women, compared with non-Hispanic White women. In addition, Black women had a 7-day longer time to receiving their first therapy for advanced disease. All of these differences were statistically significant.

Dr. Castellano told this news organization that the time-to-treatment disparities in the endometrial cancer study were determined by diagnostic codes and the timing of insurance claims.

Reasons for the disparities may include more limited access to care and structural and systemic biases in the healthcare systems where the majority of Black and Hispanic patients live, she said.

Insurance Database

In the new study on cervical cancer, Dr. Castellano and her team defined cervical cancer burden as prevalent cervical cancer diagnosis per 100,000 eligible women enrolled in a commercial insurance plan, Medicaid, or Medicare Advantage. Recurrent or metastatic cancer was determined to be the proportion of patients with cervical cancer who initiated systemic therapy.

The goals of the study were to provide a visualization of geographical distribution of cervical cancer in the US, and to quantify associations between early or advanced cancers with screening rates, poverty level, race/ethnicity, and access to brachytherapy.

The administrative claims database queried for the study included information on 75,521 women (median age 53) with a first diagnosis of cervical cancer from 2015 through 2022, and 14,033 women with recurrent or metastatic malignancies (median age 59 years).

Distribution of cases was higher in the South compared with in other US regions (37% vs approximately 20% for other regions).

Looking at the association between screening rates and disease burden from 2017 through 2022, the Geo-Analyzer showed that higher screening rates were significantly associated with decreased burden of new cases only in the South, whereas higher screening rates were associated with lower recurrent/metastatic disease burden in the Midwest and South, but a higher disease burden in the West.

In all regions, there was a significant association between decreased early cancer burden in areas with high percentages of women of Asian heritage, and significantly increased burden in areas with large populations of women of Hispanic origin.

The only significant association of race/ethnicity with recurrent/metastatic burden was a decrease in the Midwest in populations with large Asian populations.

An analysis of the how poverty levels affected screening and disease burden showed that in areas with a high percentage of low-income households there were significant associations with decreased cervical cancer screening and higher burden of newly diagnosed cases.

Poverty levels were significantly associated with recurrent/metastatic cancers only in the South.

The investigators also found that the presence of one or more brachytherapy centers within a ZIP-3 region (that is, a large geographic area designated by the first 3 digits of ZIP codes rather than 5-digit city codes) was associated with a 2.7% reduction in recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer burden (P less than .001).

Demographic Marker?

Reasons for disparities are complex and may involve a combination of inadequate health literacy and social and economic circumstances, said Cesar Castro, MD, commenting on the new cervical cancer study.

He noted in an interview that “the concept that a single Pap smear is often insufficient to capture precancerous changes, and hence the need for serial testing every 3 years, can be lost on individuals who also have competing challenges securing paychecks and/or dependent care. Historical barriers such as perceptions of the underlying cause of cervical cancer, the HPV virus, being a sexually transmitted disease and hence a taboo subject, also underpin decision-making. These sentiments have also fueled resistance towards HPV vaccination in young girls and boys.”

Dr. Castro, who is Program Director for Gynecologic Oncology at the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, pointed out that treatments for cervical cancer often involve surgery or a combination of chemotherapy and radiation, and that side effects from these interventions may be especially disruptive to the lives of women who are breadwinners or caregivers for their families.

“These are the shackles that poverty places on many Black and Hispanic women notably in under-resourced regions domestically and globally,” he said.

The study was supported by Seagen and Genmab. Dr. Castellano disclosed consulting fees from GSK and Nykode and grant support from BMS. Dr. Castro reported no relevant conflicts of interest and was not involved in either of the studies presented at the meeting.

Disparities and geographical variations in cervical cancer outcomes appear to be related to social determinants of health, including socioeconomic status, race or ethnicity, and proximity to facilities skilled at early-stage diagnosis and treatment.

These findings come from analyses of insurance data gathered via the Cervical Cancer Geo-Analyzer tool, a publicly available online instrument designed to provide visual representation of recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer burden across metropolitan statistical areas in the United States over multiple years.

[Reporting the findings of] “this study is the first step to optimize healthcare resources allocations, advocate for policy changes that will minimize access barriers, and tailor education for modern treatment options to help reduce and improve outcomes for cervical cancer in US patients,” said Tara Castellano, MD, an author and presenter of this new research, at the Society of Gynecologic Oncology’s Annual Meeting on Women’s Cancer, held in San Diego.

Seeing Cancer Cases

Dr. Castellano and colleagues previously reported that the Geo-Analyzer tool effectively provides quantified evidence of cervical cancer disease burden and graphic representation of geographical variations across the United States for both incident and recurrent/metastatic cervical cancer.

In the current analysis, Dr. Castellano, of Louisiana State University School of Medicine in New Orleans, discussed potential factors related to cervical cancer incidence and geographic variations.

The study builds on previous studies that have shown that Black and Hispanic women have longer time to treatment and worse cervical cancer outcomes than White women.

For example, in a study published in the International Journal of Gynecologic Cancer, Marilyn Huang, MD, and colleagues from the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida, and other centers in Miami looked at time to treatment in a diverse population of 274 women starting therapy for cervical cancer.

They found that insurance type (private, public, or none) contributed to delay in treatment initiation regardless of the treatment modality, and that the patient’s language and institution of diagnosis also influenced time to treatment.

In a separate scientific poster presented at SGO 2024, Dr. Castellano and colleagues reported that, among women with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer, the median time to treatment was 7 days longer for both Hispanic and Black women, compared with non-Hispanic White women. In addition, Black women had a 7-day longer time to receiving their first therapy for advanced disease. All of these differences were statistically significant.

Dr. Castellano told this news organization that the time-to-treatment disparities in the endometrial cancer study were determined by diagnostic codes and the timing of insurance claims.

Reasons for the disparities may include more limited access to care and structural and systemic biases in the healthcare systems where the majority of Black and Hispanic patients live, she said.

Insurance Database

In the new study on cervical cancer, Dr. Castellano and her team defined cervical cancer burden as prevalent cervical cancer diagnosis per 100,000 eligible women enrolled in a commercial insurance plan, Medicaid, or Medicare Advantage. Recurrent or metastatic cancer was determined to be the proportion of patients with cervical cancer who initiated systemic therapy.

The goals of the study were to provide a visualization of geographical distribution of cervical cancer in the US, and to quantify associations between early or advanced cancers with screening rates, poverty level, race/ethnicity, and access to brachytherapy.

The administrative claims database queried for the study included information on 75,521 women (median age 53) with a first diagnosis of cervical cancer from 2015 through 2022, and 14,033 women with recurrent or metastatic malignancies (median age 59 years).

Distribution of cases was higher in the South compared with in other US regions (37% vs approximately 20% for other regions).

Looking at the association between screening rates and disease burden from 2017 through 2022, the Geo-Analyzer showed that higher screening rates were significantly associated with decreased burden of new cases only in the South, whereas higher screening rates were associated with lower recurrent/metastatic disease burden in the Midwest and South, but a higher disease burden in the West.

In all regions, there was a significant association between decreased early cancer burden in areas with high percentages of women of Asian heritage, and significantly increased burden in areas with large populations of women of Hispanic origin.

The only significant association of race/ethnicity with recurrent/metastatic burden was a decrease in the Midwest in populations with large Asian populations.

An analysis of the how poverty levels affected screening and disease burden showed that in areas with a high percentage of low-income households there were significant associations with decreased cervical cancer screening and higher burden of newly diagnosed cases.

Poverty levels were significantly associated with recurrent/metastatic cancers only in the South.

The investigators also found that the presence of one or more brachytherapy centers within a ZIP-3 region (that is, a large geographic area designated by the first 3 digits of ZIP codes rather than 5-digit city codes) was associated with a 2.7% reduction in recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer burden (P less than .001).

Demographic Marker?

Reasons for disparities are complex and may involve a combination of inadequate health literacy and social and economic circumstances, said Cesar Castro, MD, commenting on the new cervical cancer study.

He noted in an interview that “the concept that a single Pap smear is often insufficient to capture precancerous changes, and hence the need for serial testing every 3 years, can be lost on individuals who also have competing challenges securing paychecks and/or dependent care. Historical barriers such as perceptions of the underlying cause of cervical cancer, the HPV virus, being a sexually transmitted disease and hence a taboo subject, also underpin decision-making. These sentiments have also fueled resistance towards HPV vaccination in young girls and boys.”

Dr. Castro, who is Program Director for Gynecologic Oncology at the Mass General Cancer Center in Boston, pointed out that treatments for cervical cancer often involve surgery or a combination of chemotherapy and radiation, and that side effects from these interventions may be especially disruptive to the lives of women who are breadwinners or caregivers for their families.

“These are the shackles that poverty places on many Black and Hispanic women notably in under-resourced regions domestically and globally,” he said.

The study was supported by Seagen and Genmab. Dr. Castellano disclosed consulting fees from GSK and Nykode and grant support from BMS. Dr. Castro reported no relevant conflicts of interest and was not involved in either of the studies presented at the meeting.

Please note that this is a commentary, an opinion piece: my opinion. The statements here do not necessarily represent those of this news organization or any of the myriad people or institutions that comprise this corner of the human universe.

Some days, speaking as a long-time physician and editor, I wish that there were no such things as race or ethnicity or even geographic origin for that matter. We can’t get away from sex, gender, disability, age, or culture. I’m not sure about religion. I wish people were just people.

But race is deeply embedded in the American experience — an almost invisible but inevitable presence in all of our thoughts and expressions about human activities.

In medical education (for eons it seems) the student has been taught to mention race in the first sentence of a given patient presentation, along with age and sex. In human epidemiologic research, race is almost always a studied variable. In clinical and basic medical research, looking at the impact of race on this, that, or the other is commonplace. “Mixed race not otherwise specified” is ubiquitous in the United States yet blithely ignored by most who tally these statistics. Race is rarely gene-specific. It is more of a social and cultural construct but with plainly visible overt phenotypic markers — an almost infinite mix of daily reality.

Our country, and much of Western civilization in 2024, is based on the principle that all men are created equal, although the originators of that notion were unaware of their own “equity-challenged” situation.

Many organizations, in and out of government, are now understanding, developing, and implementing programs (and thought/language patterns) to socialize diversity, equity, and inclusion (known as DEI) into their culture. It should not be surprising that many who prefer the status quo are not happy with the pressure from this movement and are using whatever methods are available to them to prevent full DEI. Such it always is.

The trusty Copilot from Bing provides these definitions:

• Diversity refers to the presence of variety within the organizational workforce. This includes aspects such as gender, culture, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, and opinion.
• Equity encompasses concepts of fairness and justice. It involves fair compensation, substantive equality, and addressing societal disparities. Equity also considers unique circumstances and adjusts treatment to achieve equal outcomes.
• Inclusion focuses on creating an organizational culture where all employees feel heard, fostering a sense of belonging and integration.

I am more than proud that my old domain of peer-reviewed, primary source, medical (and science) journals is taking a leading role in this noble, necessary, and long overdue movement for medicine.

As the central repository and transmitter of new medical information, including scientific studies, clinical medicine reports, ethics measures, and education, medical journals (including those deemed prestigious) have historically been among the worst offenders in perpetuating non-DEI objectives in their leadership, staffing, focus, instructions for authors, style manuals, and published materials.

This issue came to a head in March 2021 when a JAMA podcast about racism in American medicine was followed by this promotional tweet: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?”

Reactions and actions were rapid, strong, and decisive. After an interregnum at JAMA, a new editor in chief, Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, PhD, MD, MAS, was named. She and her large staff of editors and editorial board members from the multijournal JAMA Network joined a worldwide movement of (currently) 56 publishing organizations representing 15,000 journals called the Joint Commitment for Action on Inclusion and Diversity in Publishing.

A recent JAMA editorial with 29 authors describes the entire commitment initiative of publishers-editors. It reports JAMA Network data from 2023 and 2024 from surveys of 455 editors (a 91% response rate) about their own gender (five choices), ethnic origins or geographic ancestry (13 choices), and race (eight choices), demonstrating considerable progress toward DEI goals. The survey’s complex multinational classifications may not jibe with the categorizations used in some countries (too bad that “mixed” is not “mixed in” — a missed opportunity).

This encouraging movement will not fix it all. But when people of certain groups are represented at the table, that point of view is far more likely to make it into the lexicon, language, and omnipresent work products, potentially changing cultural norms. Even the measurement of movement related to disparity in healthcare is marred by frequent variations of data accuracy. More consistency in what to measure can help a lot, and the medical literature can be very influential.

A personal anecdote: When I was a professor at UC Davis in 1978, Allan Bakke, MD, was my student. Some of you will remember the saga of affirmative action on admissions, which was just revisited in the light of a recent decision by the US Supreme Court.

Back in 1978, the dean at UC Davis told me that he kept two file folders on the admission processes in different desk drawers. One categorized all applicants and enrollees by race, and the other did not. Depending on who came to visit and ask questions, he would choose one or the other file to share once he figured out what they were looking for (this is not a joke).

The strength of the current active political pushback against the entire DEI movement has deep roots and should not be underestimated. There will be a lot of to-ing and fro-ing.

French writer Victor Hugo is credited with stating, “There is nothing as powerful as an idea whose time has come.” A majority of Americans, physicians, and other healthcare professionals believe in basic fairness. The time for DEI in all aspects of medicine is now.

Dr. Lundberg, editor in chief of Cancer Commons, disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Please note that this is a commentary, an opinion piece: my opinion. The statements here do not necessarily represent those of this news organization or any of the myriad people or institutions that comprise this corner of the human universe.

Some days, speaking as a long-time physician and editor, I wish that there were no such things as race or ethnicity or even geographic origin for that matter. We can’t get away from sex, gender, disability, age, or culture. I’m not sure about religion. I wish people were just people.

But race is deeply embedded in the American experience — an almost invisible but inevitable presence in all of our thoughts and expressions about human activities.

In medical education (for eons it seems) the student has been taught to mention race in the first sentence of a given patient presentation, along with age and sex. In human epidemiologic research, race is almost always a studied variable. In clinical and basic medical research, looking at the impact of race on this, that, or the other is commonplace. “Mixed race not otherwise specified” is ubiquitous in the United States yet blithely ignored by most who tally these statistics. Race is rarely gene-specific. It is more of a social and cultural construct but with plainly visible overt phenotypic markers — an almost infinite mix of daily reality.

Our country, and much of Western civilization in 2024, is based on the principle that all men are created equal, although the originators of that notion were unaware of their own “equity-challenged” situation.

Many organizations, in and out of government, are now understanding, developing, and implementing programs (and thought/language patterns) to socialize diversity, equity, and inclusion (known as DEI) into their culture. It should not be surprising that many who prefer the status quo are not happy with the pressure from this movement and are using whatever methods are available to them to prevent full DEI. Such it always is.

The trusty Copilot from Bing provides these definitions:

• Diversity refers to the presence of variety within the organizational workforce. This includes aspects such as gender, culture, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, and opinion.
• Equity encompasses concepts of fairness and justice. It involves fair compensation, substantive equality, and addressing societal disparities. Equity also considers unique circumstances and adjusts treatment to achieve equal outcomes.
• Inclusion focuses on creating an organizational culture where all employees feel heard, fostering a sense of belonging and integration.

I am more than proud that my old domain of peer-reviewed, primary source, medical (and science) journals is taking a leading role in this noble, necessary, and long overdue movement for medicine.

As the central repository and transmitter of new medical information, including scientific studies, clinical medicine reports, ethics measures, and education, medical journals (including those deemed prestigious) have historically been among the worst offenders in perpetuating non-DEI objectives in their leadership, staffing, focus, instructions for authors, style manuals, and published materials.

This issue came to a head in March 2021 when a JAMA podcast about racism in American medicine was followed by this promotional tweet: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?”

Reactions and actions were rapid, strong, and decisive. After an interregnum at JAMA, a new editor in chief, Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, PhD, MD, MAS, was named. She and her large staff of editors and editorial board members from the multijournal JAMA Network joined a worldwide movement of (currently) 56 publishing organizations representing 15,000 journals called the Joint Commitment for Action on Inclusion and Diversity in Publishing.

A recent JAMA editorial with 29 authors describes the entire commitment initiative of publishers-editors. It reports JAMA Network data from 2023 and 2024 from surveys of 455 editors (a 91% response rate) about their own gender (five choices), ethnic origins or geographic ancestry (13 choices), and race (eight choices), demonstrating considerable progress toward DEI goals. The survey’s complex multinational classifications may not jibe with the categorizations used in some countries (too bad that “mixed” is not “mixed in” — a missed opportunity).

This encouraging movement will not fix it all. But when people of certain groups are represented at the table, that point of view is far more likely to make it into the lexicon, language, and omnipresent work products, potentially changing cultural norms. Even the measurement of movement related to disparity in healthcare is marred by frequent variations of data accuracy. More consistency in what to measure can help a lot, and the medical literature can be very influential.

A personal anecdote: When I was a professor at UC Davis in 1978, Allan Bakke, MD, was my student. Some of you will remember the saga of affirmative action on admissions, which was just revisited in the light of a recent decision by the US Supreme Court.

Back in 1978, the dean at UC Davis told me that he kept two file folders on the admission processes in different desk drawers. One categorized all applicants and enrollees by race, and the other did not. Depending on who came to visit and ask questions, he would choose one or the other file to share once he figured out what they were looking for (this is not a joke).

The strength of the current active political pushback against the entire DEI movement has deep roots and should not be underestimated. There will be a lot of to-ing and fro-ing.

French writer Victor Hugo is credited with stating, “There is nothing as powerful as an idea whose time has come.” A majority of Americans, physicians, and other healthcare professionals believe in basic fairness. The time for DEI in all aspects of medicine is now.

Dr. Lundberg, editor in chief of Cancer Commons, disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Please note that this is a commentary, an opinion piece: my opinion. The statements here do not necessarily represent those of this news organization or any of the myriad people or institutions that comprise this corner of the human universe.

Some days, speaking as a long-time physician and editor, I wish that there were no such things as race or ethnicity or even geographic origin for that matter. We can’t get away from sex, gender, disability, age, or culture. I’m not sure about religion. I wish people were just people.

But race is deeply embedded in the American experience — an almost invisible but inevitable presence in all of our thoughts and expressions about human activities.

In medical education (for eons it seems) the student has been taught to mention race in the first sentence of a given patient presentation, along with age and sex. In human epidemiologic research, race is almost always a studied variable. In clinical and basic medical research, looking at the impact of race on this, that, or the other is commonplace. “Mixed race not otherwise specified” is ubiquitous in the United States yet blithely ignored by most who tally these statistics. Race is rarely gene-specific. It is more of a social and cultural construct but with plainly visible overt phenotypic markers — an almost infinite mix of daily reality.

Our country, and much of Western civilization in 2024, is based on the principle that all men are created equal, although the originators of that notion were unaware of their own “equity-challenged” situation.

Many organizations, in and out of government, are now understanding, developing, and implementing programs (and thought/language patterns) to socialize diversity, equity, and inclusion (known as DEI) into their culture. It should not be surprising that many who prefer the status quo are not happy with the pressure from this movement and are using whatever methods are available to them to prevent full DEI. Such it always is.

The trusty Copilot from Bing provides these definitions:

• Diversity refers to the presence of variety within the organizational workforce. This includes aspects such as gender, culture, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, and opinion.
• Equity encompasses concepts of fairness and justice. It involves fair compensation, substantive equality, and addressing societal disparities. Equity also considers unique circumstances and adjusts treatment to achieve equal outcomes.
• Inclusion focuses on creating an organizational culture where all employees feel heard, fostering a sense of belonging and integration.

I am more than proud that my old domain of peer-reviewed, primary source, medical (and science) journals is taking a leading role in this noble, necessary, and long overdue movement for medicine.

As the central repository and transmitter of new medical information, including scientific studies, clinical medicine reports, ethics measures, and education, medical journals (including those deemed prestigious) have historically been among the worst offenders in perpetuating non-DEI objectives in their leadership, staffing, focus, instructions for authors, style manuals, and published materials.

This issue came to a head in March 2021 when a JAMA podcast about racism in American medicine was followed by this promotional tweet: “No physician is racist, so how can there be structural racism in health care?”

Reactions and actions were rapid, strong, and decisive. After an interregnum at JAMA, a new editor in chief, Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, PhD, MD, MAS, was named. She and her large staff of editors and editorial board members from the multijournal JAMA Network joined a worldwide movement of (currently) 56 publishing organizations representing 15,000 journals called the Joint Commitment for Action on Inclusion and Diversity in Publishing.

A recent JAMA editorial with 29 authors describes the entire commitment initiative of publishers-editors. It reports JAMA Network data from 2023 and 2024 from surveys of 455 editors (a 91% response rate) about their own gender (five choices), ethnic origins or geographic ancestry (13 choices), and race (eight choices), demonstrating considerable progress toward DEI goals. The survey’s complex multinational classifications may not jibe with the categorizations used in some countries (too bad that “mixed” is not “mixed in” — a missed opportunity).

This encouraging movement will not fix it all. But when people of certain groups are represented at the table, that point of view is far more likely to make it into the lexicon, language, and omnipresent work products, potentially changing cultural norms. Even the measurement of movement related to disparity in healthcare is marred by frequent variations of data accuracy. More consistency in what to measure can help a lot, and the medical literature can be very influential.

A personal anecdote: When I was a professor at UC Davis in 1978, Allan Bakke, MD, was my student. Some of you will remember the saga of affirmative action on admissions, which was just revisited in the light of a recent decision by the US Supreme Court.

Back in 1978, the dean at UC Davis told me that he kept two file folders on the admission processes in different desk drawers. One categorized all applicants and enrollees by race, and the other did not. Depending on who came to visit and ask questions, he would choose one or the other file to share once he figured out what they were looking for (this is not a joke).

The strength of the current active political pushback against the entire DEI movement has deep roots and should not be underestimated. There will be a lot of to-ing and fro-ing.

French writer Victor Hugo is credited with stating, “There is nothing as powerful as an idea whose time has come.” A majority of Americans, physicians, and other healthcare professionals believe in basic fairness. The time for DEI in all aspects of medicine is now.

Dr. Lundberg, editor in chief of Cancer Commons, disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Among patients with skin of color and moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) who underwent 16 weeks of treatment with lebrikizumab, 68% achieved a 75% reduction in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75), interim results from a novel phase 3b trial showed.

Lebrikizumab, a novel monoclonal antibody being developed by Eli Lilly and Co, binds with high affinity to interleukin (IL)–13, thereby blocking the downstream effects of IL-13 with high potency, one of the study investigators, Jill S. Waibel, MD, a dermatologist in Miami, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. Though the efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab to treat moderate to severe AD have been established in phase 3 studies, including subset analyses by race and ethnicity, “there is a paucity of data to guide the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD in populations traditionally under-represented in clinical trials, including patients with skin of color,” she said.

During a late-breaking abstract session, Dr. Waibel presented interim 16-week results from ADmirable, a phase 3b, open-label, 24-week study, was the first study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of lebrikizumab in adult and adolescents with skin of color and moderate to severe AD. At baseline and at 2 weeks, patients received a 500-mg loading dose of lebrikizumab. Through week 16, they received a 250-mg dose every 2 weeks. The study’s primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved a 75% reduction in EASI-75 at week 16. “If they achieved the primary endpoint at week 16, they went to a 250-mg dose every 4 weeks,” Dr. Waibel said. “If they did not achieve that [primary endpoint] they stayed on the 250-mg dose every 2 weeks.”

The analysis included 50 patients with skin types IV, V, and VI who self-reported their race as Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. They had chronic AD for at least 1 year, moderate to severe disease at baseline, a history of an inadequate response to topical medications, and were naive to biologics indicated for the treatment of AD.

Week 16 outcomes of interest were the EASI, the Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) of 0 or 1, the Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), and PDCA-Derm, a scale developed by Eli Lilly and Co that was used to compare postinflammatory lesions to unaffected adjacent normal skin. All data for statistical analyses were summarized as observed.

At baseline, the mean age of the 50 patients was 42 years, 46% were women, their mean body mass index was 30.2, and the mean age at AD onset was 23 years. Most study participants (80%) were Black or African American, 14% were Asian, and 6% were American Indian or Alaska Native; 78% were not Hispanic or Latino and 22% were Hispanic or Latino. The mean EASI score was 28.1, the mean body surface area affected was 41.7%, and the mean Pruritus NRS score was 7.2 out of 11. According to the PDCA-Derm scale, 18% of patients had hypopigmented lesions, and 54% had hyperpigmented lesions.

After 16 weeks of treatment, 68% of patients achieved an EASI-75 response, whereas 46% achieved an EASI-90 response, Dr. Waibel reported at the meeting. In addition, 39% of patients achieved an IGA score of 0 or 1, 56% achieved a ≥ 4-point improvement on the Pruritus NRS, and 66% achieved a ≥ 3-point improvement on the Pruritus NRS. The PDCA-Derm score identified improvement in postinflammatory hyperpigmented lesions in 12 of 21 patients and improvement to normal skin tone in six of 21 patients.

“I have a large population [with skin of color in my practice],” Dr. Waibel said. “I usually tell my [patients with postinflammatory hyperpigmentation] that it takes 6 months to see improvement. In this study, we saw patients achieve improvement in skin tone in a 4-month time frame. PIH is sometimes more distressing than a primary condition, whether it’s acne or atopic dermatitis. In this case, it was surprisingly improved with lebrikizumab.”

No new safety signals or serious adverse events were observed. “This is very exciting because it’s the first time there has been a trial focusing on [patients with skin of color] with moderate to severe eczema in skin types IV-VI,” Dr. Waibel said.

In an interview, the study’s lead investigator, Andrew Alexis, MD, MPH, vice chair for diversity and inclusion in the department of dermatology and professor of clinical dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City, said that the interim results from this study “ add valuable, clinically relevant data on the treatment of moderate to severe AD in patient populations with skin of color.”

“An interesting finding,” he continued, “was that improvement in postinflammatory hyperpigmented lesions was seen in 12 of 21 patients and improvement to normal skin tone was observed in six of 21 patients at week 16. This is particularly relevant to patients with skin of color who frequently suffer from pigmentary changes in association with their AD.”

Lebrikizumab was approved in November 2023 in Europe for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in people aged 12 years or older and is currently under review by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of AD. 

Both Dr. Waibel and Dr. Alexis disclosed numerous conflicts of interest from various pharmaceutical companies, including serving as a consultant and/or advisor to Eli Lilly and Co.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
 

SAN DIEGO — Among patients with skin of color and moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) who underwent 16 weeks of treatment with lebrikizumab, 68% achieved a 75% reduction in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75), interim results from a novel phase 3b trial showed.

Lebrikizumab, a novel monoclonal antibody being developed by Eli Lilly and Co, binds with high affinity to interleukin (IL)–13, thereby blocking the downstream effects of IL-13 with high potency, one of the study investigators, Jill S. Waibel, MD, a dermatologist in Miami, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. Though the efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab to treat moderate to severe AD have been established in phase 3 studies, including subset analyses by race and ethnicity, “there is a paucity of data to guide the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD in populations traditionally under-represented in clinical trials, including patients with skin of color,” she said.

During a late-breaking abstract session, Dr. Waibel presented interim 16-week results from ADmirable, a phase 3b, open-label, 24-week study, was the first study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of lebrikizumab in adult and adolescents with skin of color and moderate to severe AD. At baseline and at 2 weeks, patients received a 500-mg loading dose of lebrikizumab. Through week 16, they received a 250-mg dose every 2 weeks. The study’s primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved a 75% reduction in EASI-75 at week 16. “If they achieved the primary endpoint at week 16, they went to a 250-mg dose every 4 weeks,” Dr. Waibel said. “If they did not achieve that [primary endpoint] they stayed on the 250-mg dose every 2 weeks.”

The analysis included 50 patients with skin types IV, V, and VI who self-reported their race as Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. They had chronic AD for at least 1 year, moderate to severe disease at baseline, a history of an inadequate response to topical medications, and were naive to biologics indicated for the treatment of AD.

Week 16 outcomes of interest were the EASI, the Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) of 0 or 1, the Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), and PDCA-Derm, a scale developed by Eli Lilly and Co that was used to compare postinflammatory lesions to unaffected adjacent normal skin. All data for statistical analyses were summarized as observed.

At baseline, the mean age of the 50 patients was 42 years, 46% were women, their mean body mass index was 30.2, and the mean age at AD onset was 23 years. Most study participants (80%) were Black or African American, 14% were Asian, and 6% were American Indian or Alaska Native; 78% were not Hispanic or Latino and 22% were Hispanic or Latino. The mean EASI score was 28.1, the mean body surface area affected was 41.7%, and the mean Pruritus NRS score was 7.2 out of 11. According to the PDCA-Derm scale, 18% of patients had hypopigmented lesions, and 54% had hyperpigmented lesions.

After 16 weeks of treatment, 68% of patients achieved an EASI-75 response, whereas 46% achieved an EASI-90 response, Dr. Waibel reported at the meeting. In addition, 39% of patients achieved an IGA score of 0 or 1, 56% achieved a ≥ 4-point improvement on the Pruritus NRS, and 66% achieved a ≥ 3-point improvement on the Pruritus NRS. The PDCA-Derm score identified improvement in postinflammatory hyperpigmented lesions in 12 of 21 patients and improvement to normal skin tone in six of 21 patients.

“I have a large population [with skin of color in my practice],” Dr. Waibel said. “I usually tell my [patients with postinflammatory hyperpigmentation] that it takes 6 months to see improvement. In this study, we saw patients achieve improvement in skin tone in a 4-month time frame. PIH is sometimes more distressing than a primary condition, whether it’s acne or atopic dermatitis. In this case, it was surprisingly improved with lebrikizumab.”

No new safety signals or serious adverse events were observed. “This is very exciting because it’s the first time there has been a trial focusing on [patients with skin of color] with moderate to severe eczema in skin types IV-VI,” Dr. Waibel said.

In an interview, the study’s lead investigator, Andrew Alexis, MD, MPH, vice chair for diversity and inclusion in the department of dermatology and professor of clinical dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City, said that the interim results from this study “ add valuable, clinically relevant data on the treatment of moderate to severe AD in patient populations with skin of color.”

“An interesting finding,” he continued, “was that improvement in postinflammatory hyperpigmented lesions was seen in 12 of 21 patients and improvement to normal skin tone was observed in six of 21 patients at week 16. This is particularly relevant to patients with skin of color who frequently suffer from pigmentary changes in association with their AD.”

Lebrikizumab was approved in November 2023 in Europe for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in people aged 12 years or older and is currently under review by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of AD. 

Both Dr. Waibel and Dr. Alexis disclosed numerous conflicts of interest from various pharmaceutical companies, including serving as a consultant and/or advisor to Eli Lilly and Co.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
 

SAN DIEGO — Among patients with skin of color and moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) who underwent 16 weeks of treatment with lebrikizumab, 68% achieved a 75% reduction in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-75), interim results from a novel phase 3b trial showed.

Lebrikizumab, a novel monoclonal antibody being developed by Eli Lilly and Co, binds with high affinity to interleukin (IL)–13, thereby blocking the downstream effects of IL-13 with high potency, one of the study investigators, Jill S. Waibel, MD, a dermatologist in Miami, said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. Though the efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab to treat moderate to severe AD have been established in phase 3 studies, including subset analyses by race and ethnicity, “there is a paucity of data to guide the treatment of moderate-to-severe AD in populations traditionally under-represented in clinical trials, including patients with skin of color,” she said.

During a late-breaking abstract session, Dr. Waibel presented interim 16-week results from ADmirable, a phase 3b, open-label, 24-week study, was the first study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of lebrikizumab in adult and adolescents with skin of color and moderate to severe AD. At baseline and at 2 weeks, patients received a 500-mg loading dose of lebrikizumab. Through week 16, they received a 250-mg dose every 2 weeks. The study’s primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who achieved a 75% reduction in EASI-75 at week 16. “If they achieved the primary endpoint at week 16, they went to a 250-mg dose every 4 weeks,” Dr. Waibel said. “If they did not achieve that [primary endpoint] they stayed on the 250-mg dose every 2 weeks.”

The analysis included 50 patients with skin types IV, V, and VI who self-reported their race as Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. They had chronic AD for at least 1 year, moderate to severe disease at baseline, a history of an inadequate response to topical medications, and were naive to biologics indicated for the treatment of AD.

Week 16 outcomes of interest were the EASI, the Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) of 0 or 1, the Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), and PDCA-Derm, a scale developed by Eli Lilly and Co that was used to compare postinflammatory lesions to unaffected adjacent normal skin. All data for statistical analyses were summarized as observed.

At baseline, the mean age of the 50 patients was 42 years, 46% were women, their mean body mass index was 30.2, and the mean age at AD onset was 23 years. Most study participants (80%) were Black or African American, 14% were Asian, and 6% were American Indian or Alaska Native; 78% were not Hispanic or Latino and 22% were Hispanic or Latino. The mean EASI score was 28.1, the mean body surface area affected was 41.7%, and the mean Pruritus NRS score was 7.2 out of 11. According to the PDCA-Derm scale, 18% of patients had hypopigmented lesions, and 54% had hyperpigmented lesions.

After 16 weeks of treatment, 68% of patients achieved an EASI-75 response, whereas 46% achieved an EASI-90 response, Dr. Waibel reported at the meeting. In addition, 39% of patients achieved an IGA score of 0 or 1, 56% achieved a ≥ 4-point improvement on the Pruritus NRS, and 66% achieved a ≥ 3-point improvement on the Pruritus NRS. The PDCA-Derm score identified improvement in postinflammatory hyperpigmented lesions in 12 of 21 patients and improvement to normal skin tone in six of 21 patients.

“I have a large population [with skin of color in my practice],” Dr. Waibel said. “I usually tell my [patients with postinflammatory hyperpigmentation] that it takes 6 months to see improvement. In this study, we saw patients achieve improvement in skin tone in a 4-month time frame. PIH is sometimes more distressing than a primary condition, whether it’s acne or atopic dermatitis. In this case, it was surprisingly improved with lebrikizumab.”

No new safety signals or serious adverse events were observed. “This is very exciting because it’s the first time there has been a trial focusing on [patients with skin of color] with moderate to severe eczema in skin types IV-VI,” Dr. Waibel said.

In an interview, the study’s lead investigator, Andrew Alexis, MD, MPH, vice chair for diversity and inclusion in the department of dermatology and professor of clinical dermatology at Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City, said that the interim results from this study “ add valuable, clinically relevant data on the treatment of moderate to severe AD in patient populations with skin of color.”

“An interesting finding,” he continued, “was that improvement in postinflammatory hyperpigmented lesions was seen in 12 of 21 patients and improvement to normal skin tone was observed in six of 21 patients at week 16. This is particularly relevant to patients with skin of color who frequently suffer from pigmentary changes in association with their AD.”

Lebrikizumab was approved in November 2023 in Europe for the treatment of moderate to severe AD in people aged 12 years or older and is currently under review by the Food and Drug Administration for treatment of AD. 

Both Dr. Waibel and Dr. Alexis disclosed numerous conflicts of interest from various pharmaceutical companies, including serving as a consultant and/or advisor to Eli Lilly and Co.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.
 

Medical schools with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives could lose federal funding under a new bill proposed this week in the US House of Representatives. 

The Embracing Anti-Discrimination, Unbiased Curricula, and Advancing Truth in Education (EDUCATE) Act was introduced March 19 by North Carolina Rep. Greg Murphy (R-NC3). It aims to ban what the bill describes as “race-based mandates” at medical schools. 

The legislation highlights a larger national backlash, largely led by conservatives, against considering race and ethnicity in higher education after the Supreme Court overturned affirmative action last summer. 

According to the bill’s text, medical schools must not “establish, maintain, or contract with a [DEI] office, or any other functional equivalent.” They must also agree that they will not force students or faculty to acknowledge that “America is an oppressive nation” or that “individuals should be adversely treated on the basis of their sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin.” 

If H.R. 7725 passes, noncompliant medical schools would no longer receive federal funding or be eligible to participate in guaranteed student loan programs. 

Advocating for colorblind medical school admissions overlooks the racism that still exists in society, said Vanessa Grubbs, MD, MPH, nephrologist and cofounder of the nonprofit Black Doc Village. She told this news organization that bills like H.R. 7725 distract from the real work of diversifying the physician workforce to achieve equitable care for all. 

“There’s a huge body of literature that shows when there is racial or cultural concordance, people have better satisfaction and health outcomes,” said Dr. Grubbs. “It’s really telling that the first thing the people dreaming up these bills say is that by having a diverse workforce, it automatically means that you have a less qualified workforce or that you’re lowering standards.”

The bill joins dozens of state legislative actions seeking to ban DEI principles in healthcare.

This week, Alabama legislators passed a bill prohibiting public universities from establishing DEI programs or using state money to sponsor events involving “divisive concepts.” If signed by the governor, the bill would go into effect on October 1, 2024, joining states like Tennessee and Utah with similar laws already on the books.

Industry groups are also grappling with anti-DEI sentiment. Earlier this month, the American Academy of Dermatology’s annual meeting took an unexpected turn when a member physician and 92 colleagues petitioned the academy to end its DEI programs, including scholarships and mentoring. A committee hearing the petition declined to send it to the Academy’s board.

Rep. Murphy, a urology surgeon who wrote a related editorial in the Wall Street Journal, argued that DEI ideology violates freedom of speech and allows medical schools to reject candidates for not being progressive enough. In the opinion piece, he and coauthor nephrologist Stanley Goldfarb, MD, referred to DEI efforts as “quackery” and a form of discrimination. 

Dr. Goldfarb is the chairman of Do No Harm, a Virginia-based advocacy group that has pushed to eradicate “identity politics” in medical education and clinical practice. The group was instrumental in suing the Louisiana governor for a law requiring that minority candidates fill some state medical board positions. It also filed a complaint against the Medical Board of California on behalf of two physicians, claiming the state’s mandated implicit bias training for healthcare professionals violates their First Amendment rights.

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling overturning affirmative action, the American Medical Association (AMA) adopted a policy advising medical schools to consider race as a factor in admissions alongside other criteria such as test scores, grades, and interviews. The policy provides a “necessary safeguard” to diversify the physician workforce and advance health equity, the AMA said at the time. 

The Association of American Medical Colleges supports DEI principles in medical education while advocating for race-neutral admissions practices like holistic review. This method considers the whole applicant, including their experiences, attributes, academic achievements, and the value they bring to the learning environment. 

H.R. 7725 has 35 cosponsors, many of whom are physicians. Podiatrist and Ohio Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R) said in a statement that medical education should be “free of discrimination” and that the bill would prevent physicians from “being forced to pledge, affirm, or adopt tenets that have infiltrated higher education.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Medical schools with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives could lose federal funding under a new bill proposed this week in the US House of Representatives. 

The Embracing Anti-Discrimination, Unbiased Curricula, and Advancing Truth in Education (EDUCATE) Act was introduced March 19 by North Carolina Rep. Greg Murphy (R-NC3). It aims to ban what the bill describes as “race-based mandates” at medical schools. 

The legislation highlights a larger national backlash, largely led by conservatives, against considering race and ethnicity in higher education after the Supreme Court overturned affirmative action last summer. 

According to the bill’s text, medical schools must not “establish, maintain, or contract with a [DEI] office, or any other functional equivalent.” They must also agree that they will not force students or faculty to acknowledge that “America is an oppressive nation” or that “individuals should be adversely treated on the basis of their sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin.” 

If H.R. 7725 passes, noncompliant medical schools would no longer receive federal funding or be eligible to participate in guaranteed student loan programs. 

Advocating for colorblind medical school admissions overlooks the racism that still exists in society, said Vanessa Grubbs, MD, MPH, nephrologist and cofounder of the nonprofit Black Doc Village. She told this news organization that bills like H.R. 7725 distract from the real work of diversifying the physician workforce to achieve equitable care for all. 

“There’s a huge body of literature that shows when there is racial or cultural concordance, people have better satisfaction and health outcomes,” said Dr. Grubbs. “It’s really telling that the first thing the people dreaming up these bills say is that by having a diverse workforce, it automatically means that you have a less qualified workforce or that you’re lowering standards.”

The bill joins dozens of state legislative actions seeking to ban DEI principles in healthcare.

This week, Alabama legislators passed a bill prohibiting public universities from establishing DEI programs or using state money to sponsor events involving “divisive concepts.” If signed by the governor, the bill would go into effect on October 1, 2024, joining states like Tennessee and Utah with similar laws already on the books.

Industry groups are also grappling with anti-DEI sentiment. Earlier this month, the American Academy of Dermatology’s annual meeting took an unexpected turn when a member physician and 92 colleagues petitioned the academy to end its DEI programs, including scholarships and mentoring. A committee hearing the petition declined to send it to the Academy’s board.

Rep. Murphy, a urology surgeon who wrote a related editorial in the Wall Street Journal, argued that DEI ideology violates freedom of speech and allows medical schools to reject candidates for not being progressive enough. In the opinion piece, he and coauthor nephrologist Stanley Goldfarb, MD, referred to DEI efforts as “quackery” and a form of discrimination. 

Dr. Goldfarb is the chairman of Do No Harm, a Virginia-based advocacy group that has pushed to eradicate “identity politics” in medical education and clinical practice. The group was instrumental in suing the Louisiana governor for a law requiring that minority candidates fill some state medical board positions. It also filed a complaint against the Medical Board of California on behalf of two physicians, claiming the state’s mandated implicit bias training for healthcare professionals violates their First Amendment rights.

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling overturning affirmative action, the American Medical Association (AMA) adopted a policy advising medical schools to consider race as a factor in admissions alongside other criteria such as test scores, grades, and interviews. The policy provides a “necessary safeguard” to diversify the physician workforce and advance health equity, the AMA said at the time. 

The Association of American Medical Colleges supports DEI principles in medical education while advocating for race-neutral admissions practices like holistic review. This method considers the whole applicant, including their experiences, attributes, academic achievements, and the value they bring to the learning environment. 

H.R. 7725 has 35 cosponsors, many of whom are physicians. Podiatrist and Ohio Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R) said in a statement that medical education should be “free of discrimination” and that the bill would prevent physicians from “being forced to pledge, affirm, or adopt tenets that have infiltrated higher education.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

Medical schools with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives could lose federal funding under a new bill proposed this week in the US House of Representatives. 

The Embracing Anti-Discrimination, Unbiased Curricula, and Advancing Truth in Education (EDUCATE) Act was introduced March 19 by North Carolina Rep. Greg Murphy (R-NC3). It aims to ban what the bill describes as “race-based mandates” at medical schools. 

The legislation highlights a larger national backlash, largely led by conservatives, against considering race and ethnicity in higher education after the Supreme Court overturned affirmative action last summer. 

According to the bill’s text, medical schools must not “establish, maintain, or contract with a [DEI] office, or any other functional equivalent.” They must also agree that they will not force students or faculty to acknowledge that “America is an oppressive nation” or that “individuals should be adversely treated on the basis of their sex, race, ethnicity, religion, color, or national origin.” 

If H.R. 7725 passes, noncompliant medical schools would no longer receive federal funding or be eligible to participate in guaranteed student loan programs. 

Advocating for colorblind medical school admissions overlooks the racism that still exists in society, said Vanessa Grubbs, MD, MPH, nephrologist and cofounder of the nonprofit Black Doc Village. She told this news organization that bills like H.R. 7725 distract from the real work of diversifying the physician workforce to achieve equitable care for all. 

“There’s a huge body of literature that shows when there is racial or cultural concordance, people have better satisfaction and health outcomes,” said Dr. Grubbs. “It’s really telling that the first thing the people dreaming up these bills say is that by having a diverse workforce, it automatically means that you have a less qualified workforce or that you’re lowering standards.”

The bill joins dozens of state legislative actions seeking to ban DEI principles in healthcare.

This week, Alabama legislators passed a bill prohibiting public universities from establishing DEI programs or using state money to sponsor events involving “divisive concepts.” If signed by the governor, the bill would go into effect on October 1, 2024, joining states like Tennessee and Utah with similar laws already on the books.

Industry groups are also grappling with anti-DEI sentiment. Earlier this month, the American Academy of Dermatology’s annual meeting took an unexpected turn when a member physician and 92 colleagues petitioned the academy to end its DEI programs, including scholarships and mentoring. A committee hearing the petition declined to send it to the Academy’s board.

Rep. Murphy, a urology surgeon who wrote a related editorial in the Wall Street Journal, argued that DEI ideology violates freedom of speech and allows medical schools to reject candidates for not being progressive enough. In the opinion piece, he and coauthor nephrologist Stanley Goldfarb, MD, referred to DEI efforts as “quackery” and a form of discrimination. 

Dr. Goldfarb is the chairman of Do No Harm, a Virginia-based advocacy group that has pushed to eradicate “identity politics” in medical education and clinical practice. The group was instrumental in suing the Louisiana governor for a law requiring that minority candidates fill some state medical board positions. It also filed a complaint against the Medical Board of California on behalf of two physicians, claiming the state’s mandated implicit bias training for healthcare professionals violates their First Amendment rights.

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling overturning affirmative action, the American Medical Association (AMA) adopted a policy advising medical schools to consider race as a factor in admissions alongside other criteria such as test scores, grades, and interviews. The policy provides a “necessary safeguard” to diversify the physician workforce and advance health equity, the AMA said at the time. 

The Association of American Medical Colleges supports DEI principles in medical education while advocating for race-neutral admissions practices like holistic review. This method considers the whole applicant, including their experiences, attributes, academic achievements, and the value they bring to the learning environment. 

H.R. 7725 has 35 cosponsors, many of whom are physicians. Podiatrist and Ohio Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R) said in a statement that medical education should be “free of discrimination” and that the bill would prevent physicians from “being forced to pledge, affirm, or adopt tenets that have infiltrated higher education.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .