Diversity in Medicine

NEW YORK — Seborrheic dermatitis (SD) is a common and shared disorder across populations, but it is the third most common dermatologic complaint that Black individuals bring to the dermatologist and deserves more attention not only in this group but also overall, now that there is an approved therapy with an array of alternatives and adjunctive medications, according to Shawn Kwatra, MD.

The list of therapies effective against SD, often employed in combination, is lengthy, but topical 0.3% roflumilast foam (Zoryve), approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) late last year for treating SD, has a high rate of efficacy and should now be considered a first-line treatment option, according to Dr. Kwatra, professor and chair of the Department of Dermatology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore.
 

New Approved Therapy Draws Attention to SD

Emphasizing that topical roflumilast does not necessarily replace the use of over-the-counter shampoos and emollients or a list of prescription drugs used off-label to control this condition, he said it is also important for another reason.

Dr. Kwatra

“It shines a light on this disease,” said Dr. Kwatra, speaking at the 2024 Skin of Color Update. While his comments were focused primarily on individuals with darker skin, his major take home messages were broadly relevant across skin types.

He acknowledged that for years he “had not given seborrheic dermatitis the respect that it deserves” even though this condition comes after only acne and eczema as chief complaints among Black individuals seeing a dermatologist. The estimated global incidence is 5%, according to Dr. Kwatra, but he considers this estimate of an often “forgotten disease” too low.

One reason is that many individuals self-treat with over-the-counter solutions and never bring the complaint to a clinician. Dr. Kwatra said that he now looks for it routinely and points it out to patients who have come to him for another reason.

In patients with darker skin, the signs of SD can differ. While scalp involvement is generally easy to identify across skin types, the inflammation and erythema, sebum production, scaling and itch, and Malassezia that accompanies and drives SD might be missed in a patient with darker skin without specifically looking for these signs.
 

Skin and Gut Microbiome Involvement Suspected

The underlying causes of SD are understood as an inflammatory process involving keratinocyte disruption and proliferation that ultimately impairs skin barrier function, causes water loss, and produces scale stemming from stratum corneum, but Dr. Kwatra said that there is increasing evidence of a major role for both the skin and gut microbiome.

In regard to the skin microbiome, Malassezia has long been recognized as linked to SD and is a target of treatment, but evidence that the gut microbiome might be participating is relatively new. One clue comes from the fact that oral antifungal therapies, such as itraconazole, are known to reduce risk for SD relapse, an effect that might be a function of their ability to modulate the gut microbiome, according to Dr. Kwatra.

Topical roflumilast, a phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, was effective for SD in a vehicle-controlled phase 3 trial published in 2023. He characterized the adverse event profile as “pretty clean,” but he emphasized that a role for many other strategies remains. This is particularly true for challenging forms of SD. For example, topical tacrolimus provided meaningful protection against relapse over a period of more than 6 months in a 2021 trial that enrolled patients with severe facial SD.

The topical Janus kinase inhibitor ruxolitinib, 1.5%, (approved for atopic dermatitis and vitiligo) has also been reported to be effective for refractory facial SD. It is being evaluated in a phase 2 study of SD, according to Dr. Kwatra. A topical PDE4 inhibitor is also being evaluated for SD in a phase 2 study, he said.

Given the heterogeneity of the presentation of SD and the value of combining different mechanisms of action, Dr. Kwatra does not think any drug by itself will be a cure for SD. However, the chances of success with current drug combinations are high.

It is for this reason that Dr. Kwatra encourages clinicians to look for this disease routinely, including among patients who have a different presenting complaint. “Patients do not always bring it up, so bring it up,” he said.

This is good advice, according to Andrew F. Alexis, MD, MPH, professor of clinical dermatology and Vice-chair for Diversity and Inclusion of the Department of Dermatology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City. He agreed that the recent introduction of a therapy approved by the FDA is an impetus to look for SD and to talk with patients about treatment options.

In addition, while he also considers roflumilast foam to be a first-line drug, he agreed that combination therapies might be needed to increase the likely of rapid control of scalp and skin involvement. “SD is probably underestimated as a clinical problem, and we do have good treatments to offer for the patients who are affected,” he said at the meeting.

Dr. Kwatra reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Alexis reported financial relationships with more than 25 pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — Seborrheic dermatitis (SD) is a common and shared disorder across populations, but it is the third most common dermatologic complaint that Black individuals bring to the dermatologist and deserves more attention not only in this group but also overall, now that there is an approved therapy with an array of alternatives and adjunctive medications, according to Shawn Kwatra, MD.

The list of therapies effective against SD, often employed in combination, is lengthy, but topical 0.3% roflumilast foam (Zoryve), approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) late last year for treating SD, has a high rate of efficacy and should now be considered a first-line treatment option, according to Dr. Kwatra, professor and chair of the Department of Dermatology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore.
 

New Approved Therapy Draws Attention to SD

Emphasizing that topical roflumilast does not necessarily replace the use of over-the-counter shampoos and emollients or a list of prescription drugs used off-label to control this condition, he said it is also important for another reason.

Dr. Kwatra

“It shines a light on this disease,” said Dr. Kwatra, speaking at the 2024 Skin of Color Update. While his comments were focused primarily on individuals with darker skin, his major take home messages were broadly relevant across skin types.

He acknowledged that for years he “had not given seborrheic dermatitis the respect that it deserves” even though this condition comes after only acne and eczema as chief complaints among Black individuals seeing a dermatologist. The estimated global incidence is 5%, according to Dr. Kwatra, but he considers this estimate of an often “forgotten disease” too low.

One reason is that many individuals self-treat with over-the-counter solutions and never bring the complaint to a clinician. Dr. Kwatra said that he now looks for it routinely and points it out to patients who have come to him for another reason.

In patients with darker skin, the signs of SD can differ. While scalp involvement is generally easy to identify across skin types, the inflammation and erythema, sebum production, scaling and itch, and Malassezia that accompanies and drives SD might be missed in a patient with darker skin without specifically looking for these signs.
 

Skin and Gut Microbiome Involvement Suspected

The underlying causes of SD are understood as an inflammatory process involving keratinocyte disruption and proliferation that ultimately impairs skin barrier function, causes water loss, and produces scale stemming from stratum corneum, but Dr. Kwatra said that there is increasing evidence of a major role for both the skin and gut microbiome.

In regard to the skin microbiome, Malassezia has long been recognized as linked to SD and is a target of treatment, but evidence that the gut microbiome might be participating is relatively new. One clue comes from the fact that oral antifungal therapies, such as itraconazole, are known to reduce risk for SD relapse, an effect that might be a function of their ability to modulate the gut microbiome, according to Dr. Kwatra.

Topical roflumilast, a phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, was effective for SD in a vehicle-controlled phase 3 trial published in 2023. He characterized the adverse event profile as “pretty clean,” but he emphasized that a role for many other strategies remains. This is particularly true for challenging forms of SD. For example, topical tacrolimus provided meaningful protection against relapse over a period of more than 6 months in a 2021 trial that enrolled patients with severe facial SD.

The topical Janus kinase inhibitor ruxolitinib, 1.5%, (approved for atopic dermatitis and vitiligo) has also been reported to be effective for refractory facial SD. It is being evaluated in a phase 2 study of SD, according to Dr. Kwatra. A topical PDE4 inhibitor is also being evaluated for SD in a phase 2 study, he said.

Given the heterogeneity of the presentation of SD and the value of combining different mechanisms of action, Dr. Kwatra does not think any drug by itself will be a cure for SD. However, the chances of success with current drug combinations are high.

It is for this reason that Dr. Kwatra encourages clinicians to look for this disease routinely, including among patients who have a different presenting complaint. “Patients do not always bring it up, so bring it up,” he said.

This is good advice, according to Andrew F. Alexis, MD, MPH, professor of clinical dermatology and Vice-chair for Diversity and Inclusion of the Department of Dermatology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City. He agreed that the recent introduction of a therapy approved by the FDA is an impetus to look for SD and to talk with patients about treatment options.

In addition, while he also considers roflumilast foam to be a first-line drug, he agreed that combination therapies might be needed to increase the likely of rapid control of scalp and skin involvement. “SD is probably underestimated as a clinical problem, and we do have good treatments to offer for the patients who are affected,” he said at the meeting.

Dr. Kwatra reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Alexis reported financial relationships with more than 25 pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — Seborrheic dermatitis (SD) is a common and shared disorder across populations, but it is the third most common dermatologic complaint that Black individuals bring to the dermatologist and deserves more attention not only in this group but also overall, now that there is an approved therapy with an array of alternatives and adjunctive medications, according to Shawn Kwatra, MD.

The list of therapies effective against SD, often employed in combination, is lengthy, but topical 0.3% roflumilast foam (Zoryve), approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) late last year for treating SD, has a high rate of efficacy and should now be considered a first-line treatment option, according to Dr. Kwatra, professor and chair of the Department of Dermatology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore.
 

New Approved Therapy Draws Attention to SD

Emphasizing that topical roflumilast does not necessarily replace the use of over-the-counter shampoos and emollients or a list of prescription drugs used off-label to control this condition, he said it is also important for another reason.

Dr. Kwatra

“It shines a light on this disease,” said Dr. Kwatra, speaking at the 2024 Skin of Color Update. While his comments were focused primarily on individuals with darker skin, his major take home messages were broadly relevant across skin types.

He acknowledged that for years he “had not given seborrheic dermatitis the respect that it deserves” even though this condition comes after only acne and eczema as chief complaints among Black individuals seeing a dermatologist. The estimated global incidence is 5%, according to Dr. Kwatra, but he considers this estimate of an often “forgotten disease” too low.

One reason is that many individuals self-treat with over-the-counter solutions and never bring the complaint to a clinician. Dr. Kwatra said that he now looks for it routinely and points it out to patients who have come to him for another reason.

In patients with darker skin, the signs of SD can differ. While scalp involvement is generally easy to identify across skin types, the inflammation and erythema, sebum production, scaling and itch, and Malassezia that accompanies and drives SD might be missed in a patient with darker skin without specifically looking for these signs.
 

Skin and Gut Microbiome Involvement Suspected

The underlying causes of SD are understood as an inflammatory process involving keratinocyte disruption and proliferation that ultimately impairs skin barrier function, causes water loss, and produces scale stemming from stratum corneum, but Dr. Kwatra said that there is increasing evidence of a major role for both the skin and gut microbiome.

In regard to the skin microbiome, Malassezia has long been recognized as linked to SD and is a target of treatment, but evidence that the gut microbiome might be participating is relatively new. One clue comes from the fact that oral antifungal therapies, such as itraconazole, are known to reduce risk for SD relapse, an effect that might be a function of their ability to modulate the gut microbiome, according to Dr. Kwatra.

Topical roflumilast, a phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor, was effective for SD in a vehicle-controlled phase 3 trial published in 2023. He characterized the adverse event profile as “pretty clean,” but he emphasized that a role for many other strategies remains. This is particularly true for challenging forms of SD. For example, topical tacrolimus provided meaningful protection against relapse over a period of more than 6 months in a 2021 trial that enrolled patients with severe facial SD.

The topical Janus kinase inhibitor ruxolitinib, 1.5%, (approved for atopic dermatitis and vitiligo) has also been reported to be effective for refractory facial SD. It is being evaluated in a phase 2 study of SD, according to Dr. Kwatra. A topical PDE4 inhibitor is also being evaluated for SD in a phase 2 study, he said.

Given the heterogeneity of the presentation of SD and the value of combining different mechanisms of action, Dr. Kwatra does not think any drug by itself will be a cure for SD. However, the chances of success with current drug combinations are high.

It is for this reason that Dr. Kwatra encourages clinicians to look for this disease routinely, including among patients who have a different presenting complaint. “Patients do not always bring it up, so bring it up,” he said.

This is good advice, according to Andrew F. Alexis, MD, MPH, professor of clinical dermatology and Vice-chair for Diversity and Inclusion of the Department of Dermatology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City. He agreed that the recent introduction of a therapy approved by the FDA is an impetus to look for SD and to talk with patients about treatment options.

In addition, while he also considers roflumilast foam to be a first-line drug, he agreed that combination therapies might be needed to increase the likely of rapid control of scalp and skin involvement. “SD is probably underestimated as a clinical problem, and we do have good treatments to offer for the patients who are affected,” he said at the meeting.

Dr. Kwatra reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Alexis reported financial relationships with more than 25 pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — Because of their heterogeneity in appearance, drug-induced skin rashes are a common diagnostic challenge, but eruptions in skin of color, particularly those with a delayed onset, require a high index of suspicion to speed the diagnosis.

This risk for a delayed or missed diagnosis in patients with darker skin is shared across skin rashes, but drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DIHS) is a telling example, according to Joanna Harp, MD, director of the Inpatient Dermatology Consult Service, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital, New York City.

DIHS, also known as a drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, is a type IV hypersensitivity reaction, Dr. Harp explained. While the fact that this disorder does not always include eosinophilia prompted the DIHS acronym, the maculopapular rash often serves as a critical clue of the underlying etiology.

Signs of AGEP Can Be Subtle in Black Patients

Some of the same principles for diagnosing drug-induced rash in darker skin can also be applied to acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), another type IV hypersensitivity reaction. Like all drug-induced rashes, the earlier AGEP is recognized and treated, the better the outcome, but in Black patients, the signs can be subtle.

“The onset is usually fast and occurs in 1-2 days after [the causative drug] exposure,” said Dr. Harp, adding that antibiotics, such as cephalosporins or penicillin, and calcium channel blockers are among the prominent causes of AGEP.

One of the hallmark signs of early-onset AGEP are tiny erythematous pustules in flexural areas, such as the neck or the armpits. The issue of detecting erythema in darker skin is also relevant to this area, but there is an additional problem, according to Dr. Harp. The pustules often dry up quickly, leaving a neutrophilic scale that further complicates the effort to see the characteristic erythema.

“If you see a lot of scale, look for erythema underneath. Think of inflammation,” Dr. Harp said, explaining that the clinical appearance evolves quickly. “If you do not see the pustules, it does not mean they were not there; you just missed them.”

In addition to the flexural areas, “AGEP loves the ears, the face, and the geographic tongue,” she said, offering several pearls to help with the diagnosis. These include side lighting to make papules easier to see, pressing on the skin to highlight the difference between erythematous skin and blanched skin, and checking less pigmented skin, such as on the hands and feet, which makes erythema easier to see.

Steroids are often the first-line treatment for drug-induced skin rashes, but Dr. Harp moves to etanercept or cyclosporine for the most serious drug reactions, such as SJS and toxic epidermal necrolysis.

Etanercept is typically her first choice because patients with systemic hypersensitivity reactions with major organ involvement are often quite ill, making cyclosporine harder to use. In her experience, etanercept has been well tolerated.

Conversely, she cautioned against the use of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG). Although this has been used traditionally for severe drug hypersensitivity reactions, “the data are not there,” she said. The data are stronger for a combination of high-dose steroids and IVIG, but she thinks even these data are inconsistent and not as strong as the data supporting etanercept or cyclosporine. She encouraged centers still using IVIG to consider alternatives.

After drug sensitivity reactions are controlled, follow-up care is particularly important for Black patients who face greater risks for sequelae, such as hypopigmentation, hyperpigmentation, or keloids. She recommended aggressive use of emollients and sunscreens for an extended period after lesions resolve to lessen these risks.

Differences in the manifestations of drug-induced skin rashes by race and ethnicity are important and perhaps underappreciated, agreed Shawn Kwatra, MD, professor and chairman of the Department of Dermatology, University of Maryland, Baltimore.

Asked to comment at the meeting, Dr. Kwatra said that he appreciated Dr. Harp’s effort to translate published data and her experience into an overview that increases awareness of the risk for missed or delayed diagnoses of drug-induced rashes in skin of color. He noted that the strategies to identify erythema and pustules, such as increased suspicion in skin of color and the extra steps to rule them out, such as the use of side lighting in the case of pustules for AGEP, are simple and practical.

Dr. Harp and Dr. Kwatra had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — Because of their heterogeneity in appearance, drug-induced skin rashes are a common diagnostic challenge, but eruptions in skin of color, particularly those with a delayed onset, require a high index of suspicion to speed the diagnosis.

This risk for a delayed or missed diagnosis in patients with darker skin is shared across skin rashes, but drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DIHS) is a telling example, according to Joanna Harp, MD, director of the Inpatient Dermatology Consult Service, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital, New York City.

DIHS, also known as a drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, is a type IV hypersensitivity reaction, Dr. Harp explained. While the fact that this disorder does not always include eosinophilia prompted the DIHS acronym, the maculopapular rash often serves as a critical clue of the underlying etiology.

Signs of AGEP Can Be Subtle in Black Patients

Some of the same principles for diagnosing drug-induced rash in darker skin can also be applied to acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), another type IV hypersensitivity reaction. Like all drug-induced rashes, the earlier AGEP is recognized and treated, the better the outcome, but in Black patients, the signs can be subtle.

“The onset is usually fast and occurs in 1-2 days after [the causative drug] exposure,” said Dr. Harp, adding that antibiotics, such as cephalosporins or penicillin, and calcium channel blockers are among the prominent causes of AGEP.

One of the hallmark signs of early-onset AGEP are tiny erythematous pustules in flexural areas, such as the neck or the armpits. The issue of detecting erythema in darker skin is also relevant to this area, but there is an additional problem, according to Dr. Harp. The pustules often dry up quickly, leaving a neutrophilic scale that further complicates the effort to see the characteristic erythema.

“If you see a lot of scale, look for erythema underneath. Think of inflammation,” Dr. Harp said, explaining that the clinical appearance evolves quickly. “If you do not see the pustules, it does not mean they were not there; you just missed them.”

In addition to the flexural areas, “AGEP loves the ears, the face, and the geographic tongue,” she said, offering several pearls to help with the diagnosis. These include side lighting to make papules easier to see, pressing on the skin to highlight the difference between erythematous skin and blanched skin, and checking less pigmented skin, such as on the hands and feet, which makes erythema easier to see.

Steroids are often the first-line treatment for drug-induced skin rashes, but Dr. Harp moves to etanercept or cyclosporine for the most serious drug reactions, such as SJS and toxic epidermal necrolysis.

Etanercept is typically her first choice because patients with systemic hypersensitivity reactions with major organ involvement are often quite ill, making cyclosporine harder to use. In her experience, etanercept has been well tolerated.

Conversely, she cautioned against the use of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG). Although this has been used traditionally for severe drug hypersensitivity reactions, “the data are not there,” she said. The data are stronger for a combination of high-dose steroids and IVIG, but she thinks even these data are inconsistent and not as strong as the data supporting etanercept or cyclosporine. She encouraged centers still using IVIG to consider alternatives.

After drug sensitivity reactions are controlled, follow-up care is particularly important for Black patients who face greater risks for sequelae, such as hypopigmentation, hyperpigmentation, or keloids. She recommended aggressive use of emollients and sunscreens for an extended period after lesions resolve to lessen these risks.

Differences in the manifestations of drug-induced skin rashes by race and ethnicity are important and perhaps underappreciated, agreed Shawn Kwatra, MD, professor and chairman of the Department of Dermatology, University of Maryland, Baltimore.

Asked to comment at the meeting, Dr. Kwatra said that he appreciated Dr. Harp’s effort to translate published data and her experience into an overview that increases awareness of the risk for missed or delayed diagnoses of drug-induced rashes in skin of color. He noted that the strategies to identify erythema and pustules, such as increased suspicion in skin of color and the extra steps to rule them out, such as the use of side lighting in the case of pustules for AGEP, are simple and practical.

Dr. Harp and Dr. Kwatra had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — Because of their heterogeneity in appearance, drug-induced skin rashes are a common diagnostic challenge, but eruptions in skin of color, particularly those with a delayed onset, require a high index of suspicion to speed the diagnosis.

This risk for a delayed or missed diagnosis in patients with darker skin is shared across skin rashes, but drug-induced hypersensitivity syndrome (DIHS) is a telling example, according to Joanna Harp, MD, director of the Inpatient Dermatology Consult Service, NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital, New York City.

DIHS, also known as a drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, is a type IV hypersensitivity reaction, Dr. Harp explained. While the fact that this disorder does not always include eosinophilia prompted the DIHS acronym, the maculopapular rash often serves as a critical clue of the underlying etiology.

Signs of AGEP Can Be Subtle in Black Patients

Some of the same principles for diagnosing drug-induced rash in darker skin can also be applied to acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), another type IV hypersensitivity reaction. Like all drug-induced rashes, the earlier AGEP is recognized and treated, the better the outcome, but in Black patients, the signs can be subtle.

“The onset is usually fast and occurs in 1-2 days after [the causative drug] exposure,” said Dr. Harp, adding that antibiotics, such as cephalosporins or penicillin, and calcium channel blockers are among the prominent causes of AGEP.

One of the hallmark signs of early-onset AGEP are tiny erythematous pustules in flexural areas, such as the neck or the armpits. The issue of detecting erythema in darker skin is also relevant to this area, but there is an additional problem, according to Dr. Harp. The pustules often dry up quickly, leaving a neutrophilic scale that further complicates the effort to see the characteristic erythema.

“If you see a lot of scale, look for erythema underneath. Think of inflammation,” Dr. Harp said, explaining that the clinical appearance evolves quickly. “If you do not see the pustules, it does not mean they were not there; you just missed them.”

In addition to the flexural areas, “AGEP loves the ears, the face, and the geographic tongue,” she said, offering several pearls to help with the diagnosis. These include side lighting to make papules easier to see, pressing on the skin to highlight the difference between erythematous skin and blanched skin, and checking less pigmented skin, such as on the hands and feet, which makes erythema easier to see.

Steroids are often the first-line treatment for drug-induced skin rashes, but Dr. Harp moves to etanercept or cyclosporine for the most serious drug reactions, such as SJS and toxic epidermal necrolysis.

Etanercept is typically her first choice because patients with systemic hypersensitivity reactions with major organ involvement are often quite ill, making cyclosporine harder to use. In her experience, etanercept has been well tolerated.

Conversely, she cautioned against the use of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG). Although this has been used traditionally for severe drug hypersensitivity reactions, “the data are not there,” she said. The data are stronger for a combination of high-dose steroids and IVIG, but she thinks even these data are inconsistent and not as strong as the data supporting etanercept or cyclosporine. She encouraged centers still using IVIG to consider alternatives.

After drug sensitivity reactions are controlled, follow-up care is particularly important for Black patients who face greater risks for sequelae, such as hypopigmentation, hyperpigmentation, or keloids. She recommended aggressive use of emollients and sunscreens for an extended period after lesions resolve to lessen these risks.

Differences in the manifestations of drug-induced skin rashes by race and ethnicity are important and perhaps underappreciated, agreed Shawn Kwatra, MD, professor and chairman of the Department of Dermatology, University of Maryland, Baltimore.

Asked to comment at the meeting, Dr. Kwatra said that he appreciated Dr. Harp’s effort to translate published data and her experience into an overview that increases awareness of the risk for missed or delayed diagnoses of drug-induced rashes in skin of color. He noted that the strategies to identify erythema and pustules, such as increased suspicion in skin of color and the extra steps to rule them out, such as the use of side lighting in the case of pustules for AGEP, are simple and practical.

Dr. Harp and Dr. Kwatra had no relevant disclosures.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — Underrepresentation by gender and race in major clinical trials has been a cause for complaint for decades, but the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has drafted a regulatory solution to this issue expected to be implemented sometime in 2025.

This initiative, known as the FDA’s Diversity Action Plan (DAP), will require plans for all pivotal and phase 3 trials to provide details in their design of how diversity will be achieved or, if there are no plans for diversity, the reason why, according to Valerie M. Harvey, MD, MPH, associate clinical professor, Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine, Blacksburg, Virginia. These rules will be codified, she said at the 2024 Skin of Color Update.

Once the DAP is enacted, “the sponsor must specify the rationale and goals for study enrollment by age, ethnicity, sex, and race,” she said. Furthermore, the submission to the FDA must “describe the methods to meet the diversity benchmarks.”
 

Lack of Trial Diversity Is Common Across Medicine

Although she focused on the relevance of this initiative to dermatology, Dr. Harvey said the lack of diversity in clinical trials is pervasive throughout medicine. In one survey of randomized controlled trials, less than 60% of trials even specified the race and ethnicity of the participants. In recent psoriasis trials, only 30% met a diversity definition of ≥ 20% of patients identifying as minority (Black, Hispanic, Asian, or other non-White group), said Dr. Harvey, who practices dermatology in Newport News, Virginia.

The FDA draft guidance for the DAP was released in June 2024 and is now available for submitting comments (until September 26). The plan is expected to be published in June 2025, according to Dr. Harvey. It will pertain to all pivotal and phase 3 trials enrolling 180 days after the publication date and will be relevant to all drugs and biologics as well as certain devices.

This initiative could be a critical step toward ensuring diversity in major clinical trials after years of stagnation, Dr. Harvey said, noting that despite repeated calls for more diversity in clinical trials, the literature suggests “little progress.”

However, she said that increasing diversity in clinical trials is just one step toward gathering data about the generalizability of efficacy and safety across racial and ethnic groups. A much more complex issue involves how race and ethnicity are defined in order to understand differences, if any, for efficacy and risk.

“Race is a dynamic social construct and a poor measure for biologic variation and skin color,” Dr. Harvey said. This means that work is needed to address the more complex issue of race and ethnicity stratification that will help clinicians understand the relative benefits and risks for the drugs in these trials.

Rather than differences based on genetic or other sources of biologic differences, she said, outcomes by race alone are often suspected of reflecting disparities in access to healthcare rather than a difference in therapeutic response.
 

Skin Color Is Inadequate to Define Race

When stratifying patients by race or ethnicity, Dr. Harvey said that “we have to be very, very careful in considering the study purpose and what the study question is.” A study attempting to compare benefits and risks among subgroups by race or ethnicity will require descriptors beyond skin color.

The recognized limitations of measuring skin tone as a surrogate of race are one reason for widespread interest in moving away from the Fitzpatrick skin type (FST) rating that has been widely considered a standard, according to Dr. Harvey. Several alternatives have been proposed, including the Monk Skin Tone Scale, the Individual Typology Angle, and the Eumelanin Human Skin Color Scale, but she cautioned that these are less well validated and generally have the limitations of the FST.

If skin color was ever useful for grouping individuals on the basis of shared physiology, growing rates of intermarriage and immigration have made skin color increasingly irrelevant to racial identity. If the goal is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of drugs across racial groups and ethnicities, the characterization of populations will almost certainly require multiple descriptors and biomarkers, she said.

“It is very important to have many tools for characterizing patients by skin type,” Susan Taylor, MD, professor of dermatology and vice chair for diversity, equity, and inclusion for the Department of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview at the meeting.

The reason is “there are limitations to all of them,” she said, noting also that the questions being asked about how and if skin color and race are relevant to therapeutic options differ by the question, such as innate response or access to care.

Dr. Taylor is part of a workshop that she said is evaluating a combination of instruments for characterizing skin color and race in ways relevant to the specific question being asked.

The solutions might differ. While simple clinical assessments involving skin color might be made with methods captured on a smartphone app, Dr. Taylor acknowledged that far more complex tools might be required to document the effect of racial or ethnic differences in drug efficacy and safety in a research setting.

Outside of a research setting, any tools that might be useful for assessing race as a variable must be practical, according to Dr. Harvey. She suggested that these must be time efficient, of reasonable cost, and most importantly, reliable.

Tools meeting these criteria do not currently exist, but Dr. Harvey said the work is underway. She expects a “top-down” collaborative approach to validate alternatives to the FST. If such tools can be developed with buy-in from the FDA, they might be particularly useful for translating trial data to patient care, she added.

Dr. Harvey reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, L’Oréal, and SkinCeuticals. Dr. Taylor, president-elect of the American Academy of Dermatology, reported financial relationships with more than 25 pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — Underrepresentation by gender and race in major clinical trials has been a cause for complaint for decades, but the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has drafted a regulatory solution to this issue expected to be implemented sometime in 2025.

This initiative, known as the FDA’s Diversity Action Plan (DAP), will require plans for all pivotal and phase 3 trials to provide details in their design of how diversity will be achieved or, if there are no plans for diversity, the reason why, according to Valerie M. Harvey, MD, MPH, associate clinical professor, Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine, Blacksburg, Virginia. These rules will be codified, she said at the 2024 Skin of Color Update.

Once the DAP is enacted, “the sponsor must specify the rationale and goals for study enrollment by age, ethnicity, sex, and race,” she said. Furthermore, the submission to the FDA must “describe the methods to meet the diversity benchmarks.”
 

Lack of Trial Diversity Is Common Across Medicine

Although she focused on the relevance of this initiative to dermatology, Dr. Harvey said the lack of diversity in clinical trials is pervasive throughout medicine. In one survey of randomized controlled trials, less than 60% of trials even specified the race and ethnicity of the participants. In recent psoriasis trials, only 30% met a diversity definition of ≥ 20% of patients identifying as minority (Black, Hispanic, Asian, or other non-White group), said Dr. Harvey, who practices dermatology in Newport News, Virginia.

The FDA draft guidance for the DAP was released in June 2024 and is now available for submitting comments (until September 26). The plan is expected to be published in June 2025, according to Dr. Harvey. It will pertain to all pivotal and phase 3 trials enrolling 180 days after the publication date and will be relevant to all drugs and biologics as well as certain devices.

This initiative could be a critical step toward ensuring diversity in major clinical trials after years of stagnation, Dr. Harvey said, noting that despite repeated calls for more diversity in clinical trials, the literature suggests “little progress.”

However, she said that increasing diversity in clinical trials is just one step toward gathering data about the generalizability of efficacy and safety across racial and ethnic groups. A much more complex issue involves how race and ethnicity are defined in order to understand differences, if any, for efficacy and risk.

“Race is a dynamic social construct and a poor measure for biologic variation and skin color,” Dr. Harvey said. This means that work is needed to address the more complex issue of race and ethnicity stratification that will help clinicians understand the relative benefits and risks for the drugs in these trials.

Rather than differences based on genetic or other sources of biologic differences, she said, outcomes by race alone are often suspected of reflecting disparities in access to healthcare rather than a difference in therapeutic response.
 

Skin Color Is Inadequate to Define Race

When stratifying patients by race or ethnicity, Dr. Harvey said that “we have to be very, very careful in considering the study purpose and what the study question is.” A study attempting to compare benefits and risks among subgroups by race or ethnicity will require descriptors beyond skin color.

The recognized limitations of measuring skin tone as a surrogate of race are one reason for widespread interest in moving away from the Fitzpatrick skin type (FST) rating that has been widely considered a standard, according to Dr. Harvey. Several alternatives have been proposed, including the Monk Skin Tone Scale, the Individual Typology Angle, and the Eumelanin Human Skin Color Scale, but she cautioned that these are less well validated and generally have the limitations of the FST.

If skin color was ever useful for grouping individuals on the basis of shared physiology, growing rates of intermarriage and immigration have made skin color increasingly irrelevant to racial identity. If the goal is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of drugs across racial groups and ethnicities, the characterization of populations will almost certainly require multiple descriptors and biomarkers, she said.

“It is very important to have many tools for characterizing patients by skin type,” Susan Taylor, MD, professor of dermatology and vice chair for diversity, equity, and inclusion for the Department of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview at the meeting.

The reason is “there are limitations to all of them,” she said, noting also that the questions being asked about how and if skin color and race are relevant to therapeutic options differ by the question, such as innate response or access to care.

Dr. Taylor is part of a workshop that she said is evaluating a combination of instruments for characterizing skin color and race in ways relevant to the specific question being asked.

The solutions might differ. While simple clinical assessments involving skin color might be made with methods captured on a smartphone app, Dr. Taylor acknowledged that far more complex tools might be required to document the effect of racial or ethnic differences in drug efficacy and safety in a research setting.

Outside of a research setting, any tools that might be useful for assessing race as a variable must be practical, according to Dr. Harvey. She suggested that these must be time efficient, of reasonable cost, and most importantly, reliable.

Tools meeting these criteria do not currently exist, but Dr. Harvey said the work is underway. She expects a “top-down” collaborative approach to validate alternatives to the FST. If such tools can be developed with buy-in from the FDA, they might be particularly useful for translating trial data to patient care, she added.

Dr. Harvey reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, L’Oréal, and SkinCeuticals. Dr. Taylor, president-elect of the American Academy of Dermatology, reported financial relationships with more than 25 pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK — Underrepresentation by gender and race in major clinical trials has been a cause for complaint for decades, but the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has drafted a regulatory solution to this issue expected to be implemented sometime in 2025.

This initiative, known as the FDA’s Diversity Action Plan (DAP), will require plans for all pivotal and phase 3 trials to provide details in their design of how diversity will be achieved or, if there are no plans for diversity, the reason why, according to Valerie M. Harvey, MD, MPH, associate clinical professor, Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine, Blacksburg, Virginia. These rules will be codified, she said at the 2024 Skin of Color Update.

Once the DAP is enacted, “the sponsor must specify the rationale and goals for study enrollment by age, ethnicity, sex, and race,” she said. Furthermore, the submission to the FDA must “describe the methods to meet the diversity benchmarks.”
 

Lack of Trial Diversity Is Common Across Medicine

Although she focused on the relevance of this initiative to dermatology, Dr. Harvey said the lack of diversity in clinical trials is pervasive throughout medicine. In one survey of randomized controlled trials, less than 60% of trials even specified the race and ethnicity of the participants. In recent psoriasis trials, only 30% met a diversity definition of ≥ 20% of patients identifying as minority (Black, Hispanic, Asian, or other non-White group), said Dr. Harvey, who practices dermatology in Newport News, Virginia.

The FDA draft guidance for the DAP was released in June 2024 and is now available for submitting comments (until September 26). The plan is expected to be published in June 2025, according to Dr. Harvey. It will pertain to all pivotal and phase 3 trials enrolling 180 days after the publication date and will be relevant to all drugs and biologics as well as certain devices.

This initiative could be a critical step toward ensuring diversity in major clinical trials after years of stagnation, Dr. Harvey said, noting that despite repeated calls for more diversity in clinical trials, the literature suggests “little progress.”

However, she said that increasing diversity in clinical trials is just one step toward gathering data about the generalizability of efficacy and safety across racial and ethnic groups. A much more complex issue involves how race and ethnicity are defined in order to understand differences, if any, for efficacy and risk.

“Race is a dynamic social construct and a poor measure for biologic variation and skin color,” Dr. Harvey said. This means that work is needed to address the more complex issue of race and ethnicity stratification that will help clinicians understand the relative benefits and risks for the drugs in these trials.

Rather than differences based on genetic or other sources of biologic differences, she said, outcomes by race alone are often suspected of reflecting disparities in access to healthcare rather than a difference in therapeutic response.
 

Skin Color Is Inadequate to Define Race

When stratifying patients by race or ethnicity, Dr. Harvey said that “we have to be very, very careful in considering the study purpose and what the study question is.” A study attempting to compare benefits and risks among subgroups by race or ethnicity will require descriptors beyond skin color.

The recognized limitations of measuring skin tone as a surrogate of race are one reason for widespread interest in moving away from the Fitzpatrick skin type (FST) rating that has been widely considered a standard, according to Dr. Harvey. Several alternatives have been proposed, including the Monk Skin Tone Scale, the Individual Typology Angle, and the Eumelanin Human Skin Color Scale, but she cautioned that these are less well validated and generally have the limitations of the FST.

If skin color was ever useful for grouping individuals on the basis of shared physiology, growing rates of intermarriage and immigration have made skin color increasingly irrelevant to racial identity. If the goal is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of drugs across racial groups and ethnicities, the characterization of populations will almost certainly require multiple descriptors and biomarkers, she said.

“It is very important to have many tools for characterizing patients by skin type,” Susan Taylor, MD, professor of dermatology and vice chair for diversity, equity, and inclusion for the Department of Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said in an interview at the meeting.

The reason is “there are limitations to all of them,” she said, noting also that the questions being asked about how and if skin color and race are relevant to therapeutic options differ by the question, such as innate response or access to care.

Dr. Taylor is part of a workshop that she said is evaluating a combination of instruments for characterizing skin color and race in ways relevant to the specific question being asked.

The solutions might differ. While simple clinical assessments involving skin color might be made with methods captured on a smartphone app, Dr. Taylor acknowledged that far more complex tools might be required to document the effect of racial or ethnic differences in drug efficacy and safety in a research setting.

Outside of a research setting, any tools that might be useful for assessing race as a variable must be practical, according to Dr. Harvey. She suggested that these must be time efficient, of reasonable cost, and most importantly, reliable.

Tools meeting these criteria do not currently exist, but Dr. Harvey said the work is underway. She expects a “top-down” collaborative approach to validate alternatives to the FST. If such tools can be developed with buy-in from the FDA, they might be particularly useful for translating trial data to patient care, she added.

Dr. Harvey reported financial relationships with AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, L’Oréal, and SkinCeuticals. Dr. Taylor, president-elect of the American Academy of Dermatology, reported financial relationships with more than 25 pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Metformin significantly improved symptoms and resulted in hair regrowth in Black women with treatment-refractory central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA), in a retrospective case series.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a case series involving 12 Black women in their 30s, 40s, and 50s, with biopsy-confirmed, treatment-refractory CCCA, a chronic inflammatory hair disorder characterized by permanent hair loss, from the Johns Hopkins University alopecia clinic.
• Participants received CCCA treatment for at least 6 months and had stagnant or worsening symptoms before oral extended-release metformin (500 mg daily) was added to treatment. (Treatments included topical clobetasol, compounded minoxidil, and platelet-rich plasma injections.)
• Scalp biopsies were collected from four patients before and after metformin treatment to evaluate gene expression changes.
• Changes in clinical symptoms were assessed, including pruritus, inflammation, pain, scalp resistance, and hair regrowth, following initiation of metformin treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• Metformin led to significant clinical improvement in eight patients, which included reductions in scalp pain, scalp resistance, pruritus, and inflammation. However, two patients experienced worsening symptoms.
• Six patients showed clinical evidence of hair regrowth after at least 6 months of metformin treatment with one experiencing hair loss again 3 months after discontinuing treatment.
• Transcriptomic analysis revealed 34 up-regulated genes, which included up-regulated of 23 hair keratin–associated proteins, and pathways related to keratinization, epidermis development, and the hair cycle. In addition, eight genes were down-regulated, with pathways that included those associated with extracellular matrix organization, collagen fibril organization, and collagen metabolism.
• Gene set variation analysis showed reduced expression of T helper 17 cell and epithelial-mesenchymal transition pathways and elevated adenosine monophosphate kinase signaling and keratin-associated proteins after treatment with metformin.

IN PRACTICE:

“Metformin’s ability to concomitantly target fibrosis and inflammation provides a plausible mechanism for its therapeutic effects in CCCA and other fibrosing alopecia disorders,” the authors concluded. But, they added, “larger prospective, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials are needed to rigorously evaluate metformin’s efficacy and optimal dosing for treatment of cicatricial alopecias.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aaron Bao, Department of Dermatology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and was published online on September 4 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

A small sample size, retrospective design, lack of a placebo control group, and the single-center setting limited the generalizability of the study findings. Additionally, the absence of a validated activity or severity scale for CCCA and the single posttreatment sampling limit the assessment and comparison of clinical symptoms and transcriptomic changes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the American Academy of Dermatology. One author reported several ties with pharmaceutical companies, a pending patent, and authorship for the UpToDate section on CCCA.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Metformin significantly improved symptoms and resulted in hair regrowth in Black women with treatment-refractory central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA), in a retrospective case series.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a case series involving 12 Black women in their 30s, 40s, and 50s, with biopsy-confirmed, treatment-refractory CCCA, a chronic inflammatory hair disorder characterized by permanent hair loss, from the Johns Hopkins University alopecia clinic.
• Participants received CCCA treatment for at least 6 months and had stagnant or worsening symptoms before oral extended-release metformin (500 mg daily) was added to treatment. (Treatments included topical clobetasol, compounded minoxidil, and platelet-rich plasma injections.)
• Scalp biopsies were collected from four patients before and after metformin treatment to evaluate gene expression changes.
• Changes in clinical symptoms were assessed, including pruritus, inflammation, pain, scalp resistance, and hair regrowth, following initiation of metformin treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• Metformin led to significant clinical improvement in eight patients, which included reductions in scalp pain, scalp resistance, pruritus, and inflammation. However, two patients experienced worsening symptoms.
• Six patients showed clinical evidence of hair regrowth after at least 6 months of metformin treatment with one experiencing hair loss again 3 months after discontinuing treatment.
• Transcriptomic analysis revealed 34 up-regulated genes, which included up-regulated of 23 hair keratin–associated proteins, and pathways related to keratinization, epidermis development, and the hair cycle. In addition, eight genes were down-regulated, with pathways that included those associated with extracellular matrix organization, collagen fibril organization, and collagen metabolism.
• Gene set variation analysis showed reduced expression of T helper 17 cell and epithelial-mesenchymal transition pathways and elevated adenosine monophosphate kinase signaling and keratin-associated proteins after treatment with metformin.

IN PRACTICE:

“Metformin’s ability to concomitantly target fibrosis and inflammation provides a plausible mechanism for its therapeutic effects in CCCA and other fibrosing alopecia disorders,” the authors concluded. But, they added, “larger prospective, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials are needed to rigorously evaluate metformin’s efficacy and optimal dosing for treatment of cicatricial alopecias.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aaron Bao, Department of Dermatology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and was published online on September 4 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

A small sample size, retrospective design, lack of a placebo control group, and the single-center setting limited the generalizability of the study findings. Additionally, the absence of a validated activity or severity scale for CCCA and the single posttreatment sampling limit the assessment and comparison of clinical symptoms and transcriptomic changes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the American Academy of Dermatology. One author reported several ties with pharmaceutical companies, a pending patent, and authorship for the UpToDate section on CCCA.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Metformin significantly improved symptoms and resulted in hair regrowth in Black women with treatment-refractory central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA), in a retrospective case series.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a case series involving 12 Black women in their 30s, 40s, and 50s, with biopsy-confirmed, treatment-refractory CCCA, a chronic inflammatory hair disorder characterized by permanent hair loss, from the Johns Hopkins University alopecia clinic.
• Participants received CCCA treatment for at least 6 months and had stagnant or worsening symptoms before oral extended-release metformin (500 mg daily) was added to treatment. (Treatments included topical clobetasol, compounded minoxidil, and platelet-rich plasma injections.)
• Scalp biopsies were collected from four patients before and after metformin treatment to evaluate gene expression changes.
• Changes in clinical symptoms were assessed, including pruritus, inflammation, pain, scalp resistance, and hair regrowth, following initiation of metformin treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• Metformin led to significant clinical improvement in eight patients, which included reductions in scalp pain, scalp resistance, pruritus, and inflammation. However, two patients experienced worsening symptoms.
• Six patients showed clinical evidence of hair regrowth after at least 6 months of metformin treatment with one experiencing hair loss again 3 months after discontinuing treatment.
• Transcriptomic analysis revealed 34 up-regulated genes, which included up-regulated of 23 hair keratin–associated proteins, and pathways related to keratinization, epidermis development, and the hair cycle. In addition, eight genes were down-regulated, with pathways that included those associated with extracellular matrix organization, collagen fibril organization, and collagen metabolism.
• Gene set variation analysis showed reduced expression of T helper 17 cell and epithelial-mesenchymal transition pathways and elevated adenosine monophosphate kinase signaling and keratin-associated proteins after treatment with metformin.

IN PRACTICE:

“Metformin’s ability to concomitantly target fibrosis and inflammation provides a plausible mechanism for its therapeutic effects in CCCA and other fibrosing alopecia disorders,” the authors concluded. But, they added, “larger prospective, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials are needed to rigorously evaluate metformin’s efficacy and optimal dosing for treatment of cicatricial alopecias.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aaron Bao, Department of Dermatology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, and was published online on September 4 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

A small sample size, retrospective design, lack of a placebo control group, and the single-center setting limited the generalizability of the study findings. Additionally, the absence of a validated activity or severity scale for CCCA and the single posttreatment sampling limit the assessment and comparison of clinical symptoms and transcriptomic changes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the American Academy of Dermatology. One author reported several ties with pharmaceutical companies, a pending patent, and authorship for the UpToDate section on CCCA.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Practice Gap

Lichen planus (LP) is an inflammatory cutaneous disorder. Although it often is characterized by the 6 Ps—pruritic, polygonal, planar, purple, papules, and plaques with a predilection for the wrists and ankles—the presentation can vary in morphology and distribution.^1-5 With an incidence of approximately 1% in the general population, LP is undoubtedly uncommon.¹ Its prevalence in the pediatric population is especially low, with only 2% to 3% of cases manifesting in individuals younger than 20 years.²

Generalized LP (also referred to as eruptive or exanthematous LP) is a rarely reported clinical subtype in which lesions are disseminated or spread rapidly.⁵ The rarity of generalized LP in children often leads to misdiagnosis or delayed treatment, impacting the patient’s quality of life. Thus, there is a need for heightened awareness among clinicians on the variable presentation of LP in the pediatric population. Incorporating a punch biopsy for the diagnosis of LP when lesions manifest as widespread, erythematous to violaceous, flat-topped papules or plaques, along with the addition of an intramuscular (IM) injection in the treatment plan, improves overall patient outcomes.

Tools and Techniques

A detailed physical examination followed by a punch biopsy was critical for the diagnosis of generalized LP in a 7-year-old Black girl. The examination revealed a widespread distribution of dark, violaceous, polygonal, shiny, flat-topped, firm papules coalescing into plaques across the entire body, with a greater predilection for the legs and overlying joints (Figure, A). Some lesions exhibited fine, silver-white, reticular patterns consistent with Wickham striae. Notably, there was no involvement of the scalp, nails, or mucosal surfaces.

The patient had no relevant medical or family history of skin disease and no recent history of illness. She previously was treated by a pediatrician with triamcinolone cream 0.1%, a course of oral cephalexin, and oral cetirizine 10 mg once daily without relief of symptoms.

Although the clinical presentation was consistent with LP, the differential diagnosis included lichen simplex chronicus, atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, and generalized granuloma annulare. To address the need for early recognition of LP in pediatric patients, a punch biopsy of a lesion on the left anterior thigh was performed and showed lichenoid interface dermatitis—a pivotal finding in distinguishing LP from other conditions in the differential.

Given the patient’s age and severity of the LP, a combination of topical and systemic therapies was prescribed—clobetasol cream 0.025% twice daily and 1 injection of 0.5 cc of IM triamcinolone acetonide 40 mg/mL. This regimen was guided by the efficacy of IM injections in providing prompt symptomatic relief, particularly for patients with extensive disease or for those whose condition is refractory to topical treatments.⁶ Our patient achieved remarkable improvement at 2-week ­follow-up (Figure, B), without any observed adverse effects. At that time, the patient’s mother refused further systemic treatment and opted for only the topical therapy as well as natural light therapy.

Practice Implications

Timely and accurate diagnosis of LP in pediatric patients, especially those with skin of color, is crucial. Early intervention is especially important in mitigating the risk for chronic symptoms and preventing potential scarring, which tends to be more pronounced and challenging to treat in individuals with darker skin tones.⁷ Although not present in our patient, it is important to note that LP can affect the face (including the eyelids) as well as the palms and soles in pediatric patients with skin of color.

The most common approach to management of pediatric LP involves the use of a topical corticosteroid and an oral antihistamine, but the recalcitrant and generalized distribution of lesions warrants the administration of a systemic corticosteroid regardless of the patient’s age.⁶ In our patient, prompt administration of low-dose IM triamcinolone was both crucial and beneficial. Although an underutilized approach, IM triamcinolone helps to prevent the progression of lesions to the scalp, nails, and mucosa while also reducing inflammation and pruritus in glabrous skin.⁸

Triamcinolone acetonide injections—­administered at concentrations of 5 to 40 mg/mL—directly into the lesion (0.5–1 cc per 2 cm²) are highly effective in managing recalcitrant thickened lesions such as those seen in hypertrophic LP and palmoplantar LP.⁶ This treatment is particularly beneficial when lesions are unresponsive to topical therapies. Administered every 3 to 6 weeks, these injections provide rapid symptom relief, typically within 72 hours,⁶ while also contributing to the reduction of lesion size and thickness over time. The concentration of triamcinolone acetonide should be selected based on the lesion’s severity, with higher concentrations reserved for thicker, more resistant lesions. More frequent injections may be warranted in cases in which rapid lesion reduction is necessary, while less frequent sessions may suffice for maintenance therapy. It is important to follow patients closely for adverse effects, such as signs of local skin atrophy or hypopigmentation, and to adjust the dose or frequency accordingly. To mitigate these risks, consider using the lowest effective concentration and rotating injection sites if treating multiple lesions. Additionally, combining intralesional corticosteroids with topical therapies can enhance outcomes, particularly in cases in which monotherapy is insufficient.

Patients should be monitored vigilantly for complications of LP. The risk for postinflammatory hyperpigmentation is a particular concern for patients with skin of color. Other complications of untreated LP include nail deformities and scarring alopecia.⁹ Regular and thorough follow-ups every few months to monitor scalp, mucosal, and genital involvement are essential to manage this risk effectively.

Furthermore, patient education is key. Informing patients and their caregivers about the nature of LP, the available treatment options, and the importance of ongoing follow-up can help to enhance treatment adherence and improve overall outcomes.

Practice Gap

Lichen planus (LP) is an inflammatory cutaneous disorder. Although it often is characterized by the 6 Ps—pruritic, polygonal, planar, purple, papules, and plaques with a predilection for the wrists and ankles—the presentation can vary in morphology and distribution.^1-5 With an incidence of approximately 1% in the general population, LP is undoubtedly uncommon.¹ Its prevalence in the pediatric population is especially low, with only 2% to 3% of cases manifesting in individuals younger than 20 years.²

Generalized LP (also referred to as eruptive or exanthematous LP) is a rarely reported clinical subtype in which lesions are disseminated or spread rapidly.⁵ The rarity of generalized LP in children often leads to misdiagnosis or delayed treatment, impacting the patient’s quality of life. Thus, there is a need for heightened awareness among clinicians on the variable presentation of LP in the pediatric population. Incorporating a punch biopsy for the diagnosis of LP when lesions manifest as widespread, erythematous to violaceous, flat-topped papules or plaques, along with the addition of an intramuscular (IM) injection in the treatment plan, improves overall patient outcomes.

Tools and Techniques

A detailed physical examination followed by a punch biopsy was critical for the diagnosis of generalized LP in a 7-year-old Black girl. The examination revealed a widespread distribution of dark, violaceous, polygonal, shiny, flat-topped, firm papules coalescing into plaques across the entire body, with a greater predilection for the legs and overlying joints (Figure, A). Some lesions exhibited fine, silver-white, reticular patterns consistent with Wickham striae. Notably, there was no involvement of the scalp, nails, or mucosal surfaces.

The patient had no relevant medical or family history of skin disease and no recent history of illness. She previously was treated by a pediatrician with triamcinolone cream 0.1%, a course of oral cephalexin, and oral cetirizine 10 mg once daily without relief of symptoms.

Although the clinical presentation was consistent with LP, the differential diagnosis included lichen simplex chronicus, atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, and generalized granuloma annulare. To address the need for early recognition of LP in pediatric patients, a punch biopsy of a lesion on the left anterior thigh was performed and showed lichenoid interface dermatitis—a pivotal finding in distinguishing LP from other conditions in the differential.

Given the patient’s age and severity of the LP, a combination of topical and systemic therapies was prescribed—clobetasol cream 0.025% twice daily and 1 injection of 0.5 cc of IM triamcinolone acetonide 40 mg/mL. This regimen was guided by the efficacy of IM injections in providing prompt symptomatic relief, particularly for patients with extensive disease or for those whose condition is refractory to topical treatments.⁶ Our patient achieved remarkable improvement at 2-week ­follow-up (Figure, B), without any observed adverse effects. At that time, the patient’s mother refused further systemic treatment and opted for only the topical therapy as well as natural light therapy.

Practice Implications

Timely and accurate diagnosis of LP in pediatric patients, especially those with skin of color, is crucial. Early intervention is especially important in mitigating the risk for chronic symptoms and preventing potential scarring, which tends to be more pronounced and challenging to treat in individuals with darker skin tones.⁷ Although not present in our patient, it is important to note that LP can affect the face (including the eyelids) as well as the palms and soles in pediatric patients with skin of color.

The most common approach to management of pediatric LP involves the use of a topical corticosteroid and an oral antihistamine, but the recalcitrant and generalized distribution of lesions warrants the administration of a systemic corticosteroid regardless of the patient’s age.⁶ In our patient, prompt administration of low-dose IM triamcinolone was both crucial and beneficial. Although an underutilized approach, IM triamcinolone helps to prevent the progression of lesions to the scalp, nails, and mucosa while also reducing inflammation and pruritus in glabrous skin.⁸

Triamcinolone acetonide injections—­administered at concentrations of 5 to 40 mg/mL—directly into the lesion (0.5–1 cc per 2 cm²) are highly effective in managing recalcitrant thickened lesions such as those seen in hypertrophic LP and palmoplantar LP.⁶ This treatment is particularly beneficial when lesions are unresponsive to topical therapies. Administered every 3 to 6 weeks, these injections provide rapid symptom relief, typically within 72 hours,⁶ while also contributing to the reduction of lesion size and thickness over time. The concentration of triamcinolone acetonide should be selected based on the lesion’s severity, with higher concentrations reserved for thicker, more resistant lesions. More frequent injections may be warranted in cases in which rapid lesion reduction is necessary, while less frequent sessions may suffice for maintenance therapy. It is important to follow patients closely for adverse effects, such as signs of local skin atrophy or hypopigmentation, and to adjust the dose or frequency accordingly. To mitigate these risks, consider using the lowest effective concentration and rotating injection sites if treating multiple lesions. Additionally, combining intralesional corticosteroids with topical therapies can enhance outcomes, particularly in cases in which monotherapy is insufficient.

Patients should be monitored vigilantly for complications of LP. The risk for postinflammatory hyperpigmentation is a particular concern for patients with skin of color. Other complications of untreated LP include nail deformities and scarring alopecia.⁹ Regular and thorough follow-ups every few months to monitor scalp, mucosal, and genital involvement are essential to manage this risk effectively.

Furthermore, patient education is key. Informing patients and their caregivers about the nature of LP, the available treatment options, and the importance of ongoing follow-up can help to enhance treatment adherence and improve overall outcomes.

Practice Gap

Lichen planus (LP) is an inflammatory cutaneous disorder. Although it often is characterized by the 6 Ps—pruritic, polygonal, planar, purple, papules, and plaques with a predilection for the wrists and ankles—the presentation can vary in morphology and distribution.^1-5 With an incidence of approximately 1% in the general population, LP is undoubtedly uncommon.¹ Its prevalence in the pediatric population is especially low, with only 2% to 3% of cases manifesting in individuals younger than 20 years.²

Generalized LP (also referred to as eruptive or exanthematous LP) is a rarely reported clinical subtype in which lesions are disseminated or spread rapidly.⁵ The rarity of generalized LP in children often leads to misdiagnosis or delayed treatment, impacting the patient’s quality of life. Thus, there is a need for heightened awareness among clinicians on the variable presentation of LP in the pediatric population. Incorporating a punch biopsy for the diagnosis of LP when lesions manifest as widespread, erythematous to violaceous, flat-topped papules or plaques, along with the addition of an intramuscular (IM) injection in the treatment plan, improves overall patient outcomes.

Tools and Techniques

A detailed physical examination followed by a punch biopsy was critical for the diagnosis of generalized LP in a 7-year-old Black girl. The examination revealed a widespread distribution of dark, violaceous, polygonal, shiny, flat-topped, firm papules coalescing into plaques across the entire body, with a greater predilection for the legs and overlying joints (Figure, A). Some lesions exhibited fine, silver-white, reticular patterns consistent with Wickham striae. Notably, there was no involvement of the scalp, nails, or mucosal surfaces.

The patient had no relevant medical or family history of skin disease and no recent history of illness. She previously was treated by a pediatrician with triamcinolone cream 0.1%, a course of oral cephalexin, and oral cetirizine 10 mg once daily without relief of symptoms.

Although the clinical presentation was consistent with LP, the differential diagnosis included lichen simplex chronicus, atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, and generalized granuloma annulare. To address the need for early recognition of LP in pediatric patients, a punch biopsy of a lesion on the left anterior thigh was performed and showed lichenoid interface dermatitis—a pivotal finding in distinguishing LP from other conditions in the differential.

Given the patient’s age and severity of the LP, a combination of topical and systemic therapies was prescribed—clobetasol cream 0.025% twice daily and 1 injection of 0.5 cc of IM triamcinolone acetonide 40 mg/mL. This regimen was guided by the efficacy of IM injections in providing prompt symptomatic relief, particularly for patients with extensive disease or for those whose condition is refractory to topical treatments.⁶ Our patient achieved remarkable improvement at 2-week ­follow-up (Figure, B), without any observed adverse effects. At that time, the patient’s mother refused further systemic treatment and opted for only the topical therapy as well as natural light therapy.

Practice Implications

Timely and accurate diagnosis of LP in pediatric patients, especially those with skin of color, is crucial. Early intervention is especially important in mitigating the risk for chronic symptoms and preventing potential scarring, which tends to be more pronounced and challenging to treat in individuals with darker skin tones.⁷ Although not present in our patient, it is important to note that LP can affect the face (including the eyelids) as well as the palms and soles in pediatric patients with skin of color.

The most common approach to management of pediatric LP involves the use of a topical corticosteroid and an oral antihistamine, but the recalcitrant and generalized distribution of lesions warrants the administration of a systemic corticosteroid regardless of the patient’s age.⁶ In our patient, prompt administration of low-dose IM triamcinolone was both crucial and beneficial. Although an underutilized approach, IM triamcinolone helps to prevent the progression of lesions to the scalp, nails, and mucosa while also reducing inflammation and pruritus in glabrous skin.⁸

Triamcinolone acetonide injections—­administered at concentrations of 5 to 40 mg/mL—directly into the lesion (0.5–1 cc per 2 cm²) are highly effective in managing recalcitrant thickened lesions such as those seen in hypertrophic LP and palmoplantar LP.⁶ This treatment is particularly beneficial when lesions are unresponsive to topical therapies. Administered every 3 to 6 weeks, these injections provide rapid symptom relief, typically within 72 hours,⁶ while also contributing to the reduction of lesion size and thickness over time. The concentration of triamcinolone acetonide should be selected based on the lesion’s severity, with higher concentrations reserved for thicker, more resistant lesions. More frequent injections may be warranted in cases in which rapid lesion reduction is necessary, while less frequent sessions may suffice for maintenance therapy. It is important to follow patients closely for adverse effects, such as signs of local skin atrophy or hypopigmentation, and to adjust the dose or frequency accordingly. To mitigate these risks, consider using the lowest effective concentration and rotating injection sites if treating multiple lesions. Additionally, combining intralesional corticosteroids with topical therapies can enhance outcomes, particularly in cases in which monotherapy is insufficient.

Patients should be monitored vigilantly for complications of LP. The risk for postinflammatory hyperpigmentation is a particular concern for patients with skin of color. Other complications of untreated LP include nail deformities and scarring alopecia.⁹ Regular and thorough follow-ups every few months to monitor scalp, mucosal, and genital involvement are essential to manage this risk effectively.

Furthermore, patient education is key. Informing patients and their caregivers about the nature of LP, the available treatment options, and the importance of ongoing follow-up can help to enhance treatment adherence and improve overall outcomes.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs seek to improve dermatologic education and clinical care for an increasingly diverse patient population as well as to recruit and sustain a physician workforce that reflects the diversity of the patients they serve.^1,2 In dermatology, only 4.2% and 3.0% of practicing dermatologists self-identify as being of Hispanic and African American ethnicity, respectively, compared with 18.5% and 13.4% of the general population, respectively.³ Creating an educational system that works to meet the goals of DEI is essential to improve health outcomes and address disparities. The lack of robust DEI-related curricula during residency training may limit the ability of practicing dermatologists to provide comprehensive and culturally sensitive care. It has been shown that racial concordance between patients and physicians has a positive impact on patient satisfaction by fostering a trusting patient-physician relationship.⁴

It is the responsibility of all dermatologists to create an environment where patients from any background can feel comfortable, which can be cultivated by establishing patient-centered communication and cultural humility.⁵ These skills can be strengthened via the implementation of DEI-related curricula during residency training. Augmenting exposure of these topics during training can optimize the delivery of dermatologic care by providing residents with the tools and confidence needed to care for patients of culturally diverse backgrounds. Enhancing DEI education is crucial to not only improve the recognition and treatment of dermatologic conditions in all skin and hair types but also to minimize misconceptions, stigma, health disparities, and discrimination faced by historically marginalized communities. Creating a culture of inclusion is of paramount importance to build successful relationships with patients and colleagues of culturally diverse backgrounds.⁶

There are multiple efforts underway to increase DEI education across the field of dermatology, including the development of DEI task forces in professional organizations and societies that serve to expand DEI-related research, mentorship, and education. The American Academy of Dermatology has been leading efforts to create a curriculum focused on skin of color, particularly addressing inadequate educational training on how dermatologic conditions manifest in this population.⁷ The Skin of Color Society has similar efforts underway and is developing a speakers bureau to give leading experts a platform to lecture dermatology trainees as well as patient and community audiences on various topics in skin of color.⁸ These are just 2 of many professional dermatology organizations that are advocating for expanded education on DEI; however, consistently integrating DEI-related topics into dermatology residency training curricula remains a gap in pedagogy. To identify the DEI-related topics of greatest relevance to the dermatology resident curricula, we implemented a modified electronic Delphi (e-Delphi) consensus process to provide standardized recommendations.

Methods

A 2-round modified e-Delphi method was utilized (Figure). An initial list of potential curricular topics was formulated by an expert panel consisting of 5 dermatologists from the Association of Professors of Dermatology DEI subcommittee and the American Academy of Dermatology Diversity Task Force (A.M.A., S.B., R.V., S.D.W., J.I.S.). Initial topics were selected via several meetings among the panel members to discuss existing DEI concerns and issues that were deemed relevant due to education gaps in residency training. The list of topics was further expanded with recommendations obtained via an email sent to dermatology program directors on the Association of Professors of Dermatology listserve, which solicited voluntary participation of academic dermatologists, including program directors and dermatology residents.

There were 2 voting rounds, with each round consisting of questions scored on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5 (1=not essential, 2=probably not essential, 3=neutral, 4=probably essential, 5=definitely essential). The inclusion criteria to classify a topic as necessary for integration into the dermatology residency curriculum included 95% (18/19) or more of respondents rating the topic as probably essential or definitely essential; if more than 90% (17/19) of respondents rated the topic as probably essential or definitely essential and less than 10% (2/19) rated it as not essential or probably not essential, the topic was still included as part of the suggested curriculum. Topics that received ratings of probably essential or definitely essential by less than 80% (15/19) of respondents were removed from consideration. The topics that did not meet inclusion or exclusion criteria during the first round of voting were refined by the e-Delphi steering committee (V.S.E-C. and F-A.R.) based on open-ended feedback from the voting group provided at the end of the survey and subsequently passed to the second round of voting.

Results

Participants—A total of 19 respondents participated in both voting rounds, the majority (80% [15/19]) of whom were program directors or dermatologists affiliated with academia or development of DEI education; the remaining 20% [4/19]) were dermatology residents.

Open-Ended Feedback—Voting group members were able to provide open-ended feedback for each of the sets of topics after the survey, which the steering committee utilized to modify the topics as needed for the final voting round. For example, “structural racism/discrimination” was originally mentioned as a topic, but several participants suggested including specific types of racism; therefore, the wording was changed to “racism: types, definitions” to encompass broader definitions and types of racism.

Survey Results—Two genres of topics were surveyed in each voting round: clinical and nonclinical. Participants voted on a total of 61 topics, with 23 ultimately selected in the final list of consensus curricular topics. Of those, 9 were clinical and 14 nonclinical. All topics deemed necessary for inclusion in residency curricula are presented in eTables 1 and 2.

During the first round of voting, the e-Delphi panel reached a consensus to include the following 17 topics as essential to dermatology residency training (along with the percentage of voters who classified them as probably essential or definitely essential): how to mitigate bias in clinical and workplace settings (100% [40/40]); social determinants of health-related disparities in dermatology (100% [40/40]); hairstyling practices across different hair textures (100% [40/40]); definitions and examples of microaggressions (97.50% [39/40]); definition, background, and types of bias (97.50% [39/40]); manifestations of bias in the clinical setting (97.44% [38/39]); racial and ethnic disparities in dermatology (97.44% [38/39]); keloids (97.37% [37/38]); differences in dermoscopic presentations in skin of color (97.30% [36/37]); skin cancer in patients with skin of color (97.30% [36/37]); disparities due to bias (95.00% [38/40]); how to apply cultural humility and safety to patients of different cultural backgrounds (94.87% [37/40]); best practices in providing care to patients with limited English proficiency (94.87% [37/40]); hair loss in patients with textured hair (94.74% [36/38]); pseudofolliculitis barbae and acne keloidalis nuchae (94.60% [35/37]); disparities regarding people experiencing homelessness (92.31% [36/39]); and definitions and types of racism and other forms of discrimination (92.31% [36/39]). eTable 1 provides a list of suggested resources to incorporate these topics into the educational components of residency curricula. The resources provided were not part of the voting process, and they were not considered in the consensus analysis; they are included here as suggested educational catalysts.

During the second round of voting, 25 topics were evaluated. Of those, the following 6 topics were proposed to be included as essential in residency training: differences in prevalence and presentation of common inflammatory disorders (100% [29/29]); manifestations of bias in the learning environment (96.55%); antiracist action and how to decrease the effects of structural racism in clinical and educational settings (96.55% [28/29]); diversity of images in dermatology education (96.55% [28/29]); pigmentary disorders and their psychological effects (96.55% [28/29]); and LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) dermatologic health care (96.55% [28/29]). eTable 2 includes these topics as well as suggested resources to help incorporate them into training.

Comment

This study utilized a modified e-Delphi technique to identify relevant clinical and nonclinical DEI topics that should be incorporated into dermatology residency curricula. The panel members reached a consensus for 9 clinical DEI-related topics. The respondents agreed that the topics related to skin and hair conditions in patients with skin of color as well as textured hair were crucial to residency education. Skin cancer, hair loss, pseudofolliculitis barbae, acne keloidalis nuchae, keloids, pigmentary disorders, and their varying presentations in patients with skin of color were among the recommended topics. The panel also recommended educating residents on the variable visual presentations of inflammatory conditions in skin of color. Addressing the needs of diverse patients—for example, those belonging to the LGBTQ community—also was deemed important for inclusion.

The remaining 14 chosen topics were nonclinical items addressing concepts such as bias and health care disparities as well as cultural humility and safety.⁹ Cultural humility and safety focus on developing cultural awareness by creating a safe setting for patients rather than encouraging power relationships between them and their physicians. Various topics related to racism also were recommended to be included in residency curricula, including education on implementation of antiracist action in the workplace.

Many of the nonclinical topics are intertwined; for instance, learning about health care disparities in patients with limited English proficiency allows for improved best practices in delivering care to patients from this population. The first step in overcoming bias and subsequent disparities is acknowledging how the perpetuation of bias leads to disparities after being taught tools to recognize it.

Our group’s guidance on DEI topics should help dermatology residency program leaders as they design and refine program curricula. There are multiple avenues for incorporating education on these topics, including lectures, interactive workshops, role-playing sessions, book or journal clubs, and discussion circles. Many of these topics/programs may already be included in programs’ didactic curricula, which would minimize the burden of finding space to educate on these topics. Institutional cultural change is key to ensuring truly diverse, equitable, and inclusive workplaces. Educating tomorrow’s dermatologists on these topics is a first step toward achieving that cultural change.

Limitations—A limitation of this e-Delphi survey is that only a selection of experts in this field was included. Additionally, we were concerned that the Likert scale format and the bar we set for inclusion and exclusion may have failed to adequately capture participants’ nuanced opinions. As such, participants were able to provide open-ended feedback, and suggestions for alternate wording or other changes were considered by the steering committee. Finally, inclusion recommendations identified in this survey were developed specifically for US dermatology residents.

Conclusion

In this e-Delphi consensus assessment of DEI-related topics, we recommend the inclusion of 23 topics into dermatology residency program curricula to improve medical training and the patient-physician relationship as well as to create better health outcomes. We also provide specific sample resource recommendations in eTables 1 and 2 to facilitate inclusion of these topics into residency curricula across the country.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs seek to improve dermatologic education and clinical care for an increasingly diverse patient population as well as to recruit and sustain a physician workforce that reflects the diversity of the patients they serve.^1,2 In dermatology, only 4.2% and 3.0% of practicing dermatologists self-identify as being of Hispanic and African American ethnicity, respectively, compared with 18.5% and 13.4% of the general population, respectively.³ Creating an educational system that works to meet the goals of DEI is essential to improve health outcomes and address disparities. The lack of robust DEI-related curricula during residency training may limit the ability of practicing dermatologists to provide comprehensive and culturally sensitive care. It has been shown that racial concordance between patients and physicians has a positive impact on patient satisfaction by fostering a trusting patient-physician relationship.⁴

It is the responsibility of all dermatologists to create an environment where patients from any background can feel comfortable, which can be cultivated by establishing patient-centered communication and cultural humility.⁵ These skills can be strengthened via the implementation of DEI-related curricula during residency training. Augmenting exposure of these topics during training can optimize the delivery of dermatologic care by providing residents with the tools and confidence needed to care for patients of culturally diverse backgrounds. Enhancing DEI education is crucial to not only improve the recognition and treatment of dermatologic conditions in all skin and hair types but also to minimize misconceptions, stigma, health disparities, and discrimination faced by historically marginalized communities. Creating a culture of inclusion is of paramount importance to build successful relationships with patients and colleagues of culturally diverse backgrounds.⁶

There are multiple efforts underway to increase DEI education across the field of dermatology, including the development of DEI task forces in professional organizations and societies that serve to expand DEI-related research, mentorship, and education. The American Academy of Dermatology has been leading efforts to create a curriculum focused on skin of color, particularly addressing inadequate educational training on how dermatologic conditions manifest in this population.⁷ The Skin of Color Society has similar efforts underway and is developing a speakers bureau to give leading experts a platform to lecture dermatology trainees as well as patient and community audiences on various topics in skin of color.⁸ These are just 2 of many professional dermatology organizations that are advocating for expanded education on DEI; however, consistently integrating DEI-related topics into dermatology residency training curricula remains a gap in pedagogy. To identify the DEI-related topics of greatest relevance to the dermatology resident curricula, we implemented a modified electronic Delphi (e-Delphi) consensus process to provide standardized recommendations.

Methods

A 2-round modified e-Delphi method was utilized (Figure). An initial list of potential curricular topics was formulated by an expert panel consisting of 5 dermatologists from the Association of Professors of Dermatology DEI subcommittee and the American Academy of Dermatology Diversity Task Force (A.M.A., S.B., R.V., S.D.W., J.I.S.). Initial topics were selected via several meetings among the panel members to discuss existing DEI concerns and issues that were deemed relevant due to education gaps in residency training. The list of topics was further expanded with recommendations obtained via an email sent to dermatology program directors on the Association of Professors of Dermatology listserve, which solicited voluntary participation of academic dermatologists, including program directors and dermatology residents.

There were 2 voting rounds, with each round consisting of questions scored on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5 (1=not essential, 2=probably not essential, 3=neutral, 4=probably essential, 5=definitely essential). The inclusion criteria to classify a topic as necessary for integration into the dermatology residency curriculum included 95% (18/19) or more of respondents rating the topic as probably essential or definitely essential; if more than 90% (17/19) of respondents rated the topic as probably essential or definitely essential and less than 10% (2/19) rated it as not essential or probably not essential, the topic was still included as part of the suggested curriculum. Topics that received ratings of probably essential or definitely essential by less than 80% (15/19) of respondents were removed from consideration. The topics that did not meet inclusion or exclusion criteria during the first round of voting were refined by the e-Delphi steering committee (V.S.E-C. and F-A.R.) based on open-ended feedback from the voting group provided at the end of the survey and subsequently passed to the second round of voting.

Results

Participants—A total of 19 respondents participated in both voting rounds, the majority (80% [15/19]) of whom were program directors or dermatologists affiliated with academia or development of DEI education; the remaining 20% [4/19]) were dermatology residents.

Open-Ended Feedback—Voting group members were able to provide open-ended feedback for each of the sets of topics after the survey, which the steering committee utilized to modify the topics as needed for the final voting round. For example, “structural racism/discrimination” was originally mentioned as a topic, but several participants suggested including specific types of racism; therefore, the wording was changed to “racism: types, definitions” to encompass broader definitions and types of racism.

Survey Results—Two genres of topics were surveyed in each voting round: clinical and nonclinical. Participants voted on a total of 61 topics, with 23 ultimately selected in the final list of consensus curricular topics. Of those, 9 were clinical and 14 nonclinical. All topics deemed necessary for inclusion in residency curricula are presented in eTables 1 and 2.

During the first round of voting, the e-Delphi panel reached a consensus to include the following 17 topics as essential to dermatology residency training (along with the percentage of voters who classified them as probably essential or definitely essential): how to mitigate bias in clinical and workplace settings (100% [40/40]); social determinants of health-related disparities in dermatology (100% [40/40]); hairstyling practices across different hair textures (100% [40/40]); definitions and examples of microaggressions (97.50% [39/40]); definition, background, and types of bias (97.50% [39/40]); manifestations of bias in the clinical setting (97.44% [38/39]); racial and ethnic disparities in dermatology (97.44% [38/39]); keloids (97.37% [37/38]); differences in dermoscopic presentations in skin of color (97.30% [36/37]); skin cancer in patients with skin of color (97.30% [36/37]); disparities due to bias (95.00% [38/40]); how to apply cultural humility and safety to patients of different cultural backgrounds (94.87% [37/40]); best practices in providing care to patients with limited English proficiency (94.87% [37/40]); hair loss in patients with textured hair (94.74% [36/38]); pseudofolliculitis barbae and acne keloidalis nuchae (94.60% [35/37]); disparities regarding people experiencing homelessness (92.31% [36/39]); and definitions and types of racism and other forms of discrimination (92.31% [36/39]). eTable 1 provides a list of suggested resources to incorporate these topics into the educational components of residency curricula. The resources provided were not part of the voting process, and they were not considered in the consensus analysis; they are included here as suggested educational catalysts.

During the second round of voting, 25 topics were evaluated. Of those, the following 6 topics were proposed to be included as essential in residency training: differences in prevalence and presentation of common inflammatory disorders (100% [29/29]); manifestations of bias in the learning environment (96.55%); antiracist action and how to decrease the effects of structural racism in clinical and educational settings (96.55% [28/29]); diversity of images in dermatology education (96.55% [28/29]); pigmentary disorders and their psychological effects (96.55% [28/29]); and LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) dermatologic health care (96.55% [28/29]). eTable 2 includes these topics as well as suggested resources to help incorporate them into training.

Comment

This study utilized a modified e-Delphi technique to identify relevant clinical and nonclinical DEI topics that should be incorporated into dermatology residency curricula. The panel members reached a consensus for 9 clinical DEI-related topics. The respondents agreed that the topics related to skin and hair conditions in patients with skin of color as well as textured hair were crucial to residency education. Skin cancer, hair loss, pseudofolliculitis barbae, acne keloidalis nuchae, keloids, pigmentary disorders, and their varying presentations in patients with skin of color were among the recommended topics. The panel also recommended educating residents on the variable visual presentations of inflammatory conditions in skin of color. Addressing the needs of diverse patients—for example, those belonging to the LGBTQ community—also was deemed important for inclusion.

The remaining 14 chosen topics were nonclinical items addressing concepts such as bias and health care disparities as well as cultural humility and safety.⁹ Cultural humility and safety focus on developing cultural awareness by creating a safe setting for patients rather than encouraging power relationships between them and their physicians. Various topics related to racism also were recommended to be included in residency curricula, including education on implementation of antiracist action in the workplace.

Many of the nonclinical topics are intertwined; for instance, learning about health care disparities in patients with limited English proficiency allows for improved best practices in delivering care to patients from this population. The first step in overcoming bias and subsequent disparities is acknowledging how the perpetuation of bias leads to disparities after being taught tools to recognize it.

Our group’s guidance on DEI topics should help dermatology residency program leaders as they design and refine program curricula. There are multiple avenues for incorporating education on these topics, including lectures, interactive workshops, role-playing sessions, book or journal clubs, and discussion circles. Many of these topics/programs may already be included in programs’ didactic curricula, which would minimize the burden of finding space to educate on these topics. Institutional cultural change is key to ensuring truly diverse, equitable, and inclusive workplaces. Educating tomorrow’s dermatologists on these topics is a first step toward achieving that cultural change.

Limitations—A limitation of this e-Delphi survey is that only a selection of experts in this field was included. Additionally, we were concerned that the Likert scale format and the bar we set for inclusion and exclusion may have failed to adequately capture participants’ nuanced opinions. As such, participants were able to provide open-ended feedback, and suggestions for alternate wording or other changes were considered by the steering committee. Finally, inclusion recommendations identified in this survey were developed specifically for US dermatology residents.

Conclusion

In this e-Delphi consensus assessment of DEI-related topics, we recommend the inclusion of 23 topics into dermatology residency program curricula to improve medical training and the patient-physician relationship as well as to create better health outcomes. We also provide specific sample resource recommendations in eTables 1 and 2 to facilitate inclusion of these topics into residency curricula across the country.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs seek to improve dermatologic education and clinical care for an increasingly diverse patient population as well as to recruit and sustain a physician workforce that reflects the diversity of the patients they serve.^1,2 In dermatology, only 4.2% and 3.0% of practicing dermatologists self-identify as being of Hispanic and African American ethnicity, respectively, compared with 18.5% and 13.4% of the general population, respectively.³ Creating an educational system that works to meet the goals of DEI is essential to improve health outcomes and address disparities. The lack of robust DEI-related curricula during residency training may limit the ability of practicing dermatologists to provide comprehensive and culturally sensitive care. It has been shown that racial concordance between patients and physicians has a positive impact on patient satisfaction by fostering a trusting patient-physician relationship.⁴

It is the responsibility of all dermatologists to create an environment where patients from any background can feel comfortable, which can be cultivated by establishing patient-centered communication and cultural humility.⁵ These skills can be strengthened via the implementation of DEI-related curricula during residency training. Augmenting exposure of these topics during training can optimize the delivery of dermatologic care by providing residents with the tools and confidence needed to care for patients of culturally diverse backgrounds. Enhancing DEI education is crucial to not only improve the recognition and treatment of dermatologic conditions in all skin and hair types but also to minimize misconceptions, stigma, health disparities, and discrimination faced by historically marginalized communities. Creating a culture of inclusion is of paramount importance to build successful relationships with patients and colleagues of culturally diverse backgrounds.⁶

There are multiple efforts underway to increase DEI education across the field of dermatology, including the development of DEI task forces in professional organizations and societies that serve to expand DEI-related research, mentorship, and education. The American Academy of Dermatology has been leading efforts to create a curriculum focused on skin of color, particularly addressing inadequate educational training on how dermatologic conditions manifest in this population.⁷ The Skin of Color Society has similar efforts underway and is developing a speakers bureau to give leading experts a platform to lecture dermatology trainees as well as patient and community audiences on various topics in skin of color.⁸ These are just 2 of many professional dermatology organizations that are advocating for expanded education on DEI; however, consistently integrating DEI-related topics into dermatology residency training curricula remains a gap in pedagogy. To identify the DEI-related topics of greatest relevance to the dermatology resident curricula, we implemented a modified electronic Delphi (e-Delphi) consensus process to provide standardized recommendations.

Methods

A 2-round modified e-Delphi method was utilized (Figure). An initial list of potential curricular topics was formulated by an expert panel consisting of 5 dermatologists from the Association of Professors of Dermatology DEI subcommittee and the American Academy of Dermatology Diversity Task Force (A.M.A., S.B., R.V., S.D.W., J.I.S.). Initial topics were selected via several meetings among the panel members to discuss existing DEI concerns and issues that were deemed relevant due to education gaps in residency training. The list of topics was further expanded with recommendations obtained via an email sent to dermatology program directors on the Association of Professors of Dermatology listserve, which solicited voluntary participation of academic dermatologists, including program directors and dermatology residents.

There were 2 voting rounds, with each round consisting of questions scored on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5 (1=not essential, 2=probably not essential, 3=neutral, 4=probably essential, 5=definitely essential). The inclusion criteria to classify a topic as necessary for integration into the dermatology residency curriculum included 95% (18/19) or more of respondents rating the topic as probably essential or definitely essential; if more than 90% (17/19) of respondents rated the topic as probably essential or definitely essential and less than 10% (2/19) rated it as not essential or probably not essential, the topic was still included as part of the suggested curriculum. Topics that received ratings of probably essential or definitely essential by less than 80% (15/19) of respondents were removed from consideration. The topics that did not meet inclusion or exclusion criteria during the first round of voting were refined by the e-Delphi steering committee (V.S.E-C. and F-A.R.) based on open-ended feedback from the voting group provided at the end of the survey and subsequently passed to the second round of voting.

Results

Participants—A total of 19 respondents participated in both voting rounds, the majority (80% [15/19]) of whom were program directors or dermatologists affiliated with academia or development of DEI education; the remaining 20% [4/19]) were dermatology residents.

Open-Ended Feedback—Voting group members were able to provide open-ended feedback for each of the sets of topics after the survey, which the steering committee utilized to modify the topics as needed for the final voting round. For example, “structural racism/discrimination” was originally mentioned as a topic, but several participants suggested including specific types of racism; therefore, the wording was changed to “racism: types, definitions” to encompass broader definitions and types of racism.

Survey Results—Two genres of topics were surveyed in each voting round: clinical and nonclinical. Participants voted on a total of 61 topics, with 23 ultimately selected in the final list of consensus curricular topics. Of those, 9 were clinical and 14 nonclinical. All topics deemed necessary for inclusion in residency curricula are presented in eTables 1 and 2.

During the first round of voting, the e-Delphi panel reached a consensus to include the following 17 topics as essential to dermatology residency training (along with the percentage of voters who classified them as probably essential or definitely essential): how to mitigate bias in clinical and workplace settings (100% [40/40]); social determinants of health-related disparities in dermatology (100% [40/40]); hairstyling practices across different hair textures (100% [40/40]); definitions and examples of microaggressions (97.50% [39/40]); definition, background, and types of bias (97.50% [39/40]); manifestations of bias in the clinical setting (97.44% [38/39]); racial and ethnic disparities in dermatology (97.44% [38/39]); keloids (97.37% [37/38]); differences in dermoscopic presentations in skin of color (97.30% [36/37]); skin cancer in patients with skin of color (97.30% [36/37]); disparities due to bias (95.00% [38/40]); how to apply cultural humility and safety to patients of different cultural backgrounds (94.87% [37/40]); best practices in providing care to patients with limited English proficiency (94.87% [37/40]); hair loss in patients with textured hair (94.74% [36/38]); pseudofolliculitis barbae and acne keloidalis nuchae (94.60% [35/37]); disparities regarding people experiencing homelessness (92.31% [36/39]); and definitions and types of racism and other forms of discrimination (92.31% [36/39]). eTable 1 provides a list of suggested resources to incorporate these topics into the educational components of residency curricula. The resources provided were not part of the voting process, and they were not considered in the consensus analysis; they are included here as suggested educational catalysts.

During the second round of voting, 25 topics were evaluated. Of those, the following 6 topics were proposed to be included as essential in residency training: differences in prevalence and presentation of common inflammatory disorders (100% [29/29]); manifestations of bias in the learning environment (96.55%); antiracist action and how to decrease the effects of structural racism in clinical and educational settings (96.55% [28/29]); diversity of images in dermatology education (96.55% [28/29]); pigmentary disorders and their psychological effects (96.55% [28/29]); and LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) dermatologic health care (96.55% [28/29]). eTable 2 includes these topics as well as suggested resources to help incorporate them into training.

Comment

This study utilized a modified e-Delphi technique to identify relevant clinical and nonclinical DEI topics that should be incorporated into dermatology residency curricula. The panel members reached a consensus for 9 clinical DEI-related topics. The respondents agreed that the topics related to skin and hair conditions in patients with skin of color as well as textured hair were crucial to residency education. Skin cancer, hair loss, pseudofolliculitis barbae, acne keloidalis nuchae, keloids, pigmentary disorders, and their varying presentations in patients with skin of color were among the recommended topics. The panel also recommended educating residents on the variable visual presentations of inflammatory conditions in skin of color. Addressing the needs of diverse patients—for example, those belonging to the LGBTQ community—also was deemed important for inclusion.

The remaining 14 chosen topics were nonclinical items addressing concepts such as bias and health care disparities as well as cultural humility and safety.⁹ Cultural humility and safety focus on developing cultural awareness by creating a safe setting for patients rather than encouraging power relationships between them and their physicians. Various topics related to racism also were recommended to be included in residency curricula, including education on implementation of antiracist action in the workplace.

Many of the nonclinical topics are intertwined; for instance, learning about health care disparities in patients with limited English proficiency allows for improved best practices in delivering care to patients from this population. The first step in overcoming bias and subsequent disparities is acknowledging how the perpetuation of bias leads to disparities after being taught tools to recognize it.

Our group’s guidance on DEI topics should help dermatology residency program leaders as they design and refine program curricula. There are multiple avenues for incorporating education on these topics, including lectures, interactive workshops, role-playing sessions, book or journal clubs, and discussion circles. Many of these topics/programs may already be included in programs’ didactic curricula, which would minimize the burden of finding space to educate on these topics. Institutional cultural change is key to ensuring truly diverse, equitable, and inclusive workplaces. Educating tomorrow’s dermatologists on these topics is a first step toward achieving that cultural change.

Limitations—A limitation of this e-Delphi survey is that only a selection of experts in this field was included. Additionally, we were concerned that the Likert scale format and the bar we set for inclusion and exclusion may have failed to adequately capture participants’ nuanced opinions. As such, participants were able to provide open-ended feedback, and suggestions for alternate wording or other changes were considered by the steering committee. Finally, inclusion recommendations identified in this survey were developed specifically for US dermatology residents.

Conclusion

In this e-Delphi consensus assessment of DEI-related topics, we recommend the inclusion of 23 topics into dermatology residency program curricula to improve medical training and the patient-physician relationship as well as to create better health outcomes. We also provide specific sample resource recommendations in eTables 1 and 2 to facilitate inclusion of these topics into residency curricula across the country.

TOPLINE:

Metformin significantly improved symptoms and resulted in hair regrowth in Black women with treatment-refractory central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA), in a retrospective case series.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a case series involving 12 Black women in their 30s, 40s, and 50s, with biopsy-confirmed, treatment-refractory CCCA, a chronic inflammatory hair disorder characterized by permanent hair loss, from the Johns Hopkins University alopecia clinic.
• Participants received CCCA treatment for at least 6 months and had stagnant or worsening symptoms before oral extended-release metformin (500 mg daily) was added to treatment. (Treatments included topical clobetasol, compounded minoxidil, and platelet-rich plasma injections.)
• Scalp biopsies were collected from four patients before and after metformin treatment to evaluate gene expression changes.
• Changes in clinical symptoms were assessed, including pruritus, inflammation, pain, scalp resistance, and hair regrowth, following initiation of metformin treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• Metformin led to significant clinical improvement in eight patients, which included reductions in scalp pain, scalp resistance, pruritus, and inflammation. However, two patients experienced worsening symptoms.
• Six patients showed clinical evidence of hair regrowth after at least 6 months of metformin treatment with one experiencing hair loss again 3 months after discontinuing treatment.
• Transcriptomic analysis revealed 34 upregulated genes, which included upregulated of 23 hair keratin-associated proteins, and pathways related to keratinization, epidermis development, and the hair cycle. In addition, eight genes were downregulated, with pathways that included those associated with extracellular matrix organization, collagen fibril organization, and collagen metabolism.
• Gene set variation analysis showed reduced expression of T helper 17 cell and epithelial-mesenchymal transition pathways and elevated adenosine monophosphate kinase signaling and keratin-associated proteins after treatment with metformin.

IN PRACTICE:

“Metformin’s ability to concomitantly target fibrosis and inflammation provides a plausible mechanism for its therapeutic effects in CCCA and other fibrosing alopecia disorders,” the authors concluded. But, they added, “larger prospective, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials are needed to rigorously evaluate metformin’s efficacy and optimal dosing for treatment of cicatricial alopecias.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aaron Bao, Department of Dermatology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and was published online on September 4 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

A small sample size, retrospective design, lack of a placebo control group, and the single-center setting limited the generalizability of the study findings. In addition, the absence of a validated activity or severity scale for CCCA and the single posttreatment sampling limit the assessment and comparison of clinical symptoms and transcriptomic changes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the American Academy of Dermatology. One author reported several ties with pharmaceutical companies, a pending patent, and authorship for the UpToDate section on CCCA.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Metformin significantly improved symptoms and resulted in hair regrowth in Black women with treatment-refractory central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA), in a retrospective case series.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a case series involving 12 Black women in their 30s, 40s, and 50s, with biopsy-confirmed, treatment-refractory CCCA, a chronic inflammatory hair disorder characterized by permanent hair loss, from the Johns Hopkins University alopecia clinic.
• Participants received CCCA treatment for at least 6 months and had stagnant or worsening symptoms before oral extended-release metformin (500 mg daily) was added to treatment. (Treatments included topical clobetasol, compounded minoxidil, and platelet-rich plasma injections.)
• Scalp biopsies were collected from four patients before and after metformin treatment to evaluate gene expression changes.
• Changes in clinical symptoms were assessed, including pruritus, inflammation, pain, scalp resistance, and hair regrowth, following initiation of metformin treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• Metformin led to significant clinical improvement in eight patients, which included reductions in scalp pain, scalp resistance, pruritus, and inflammation. However, two patients experienced worsening symptoms.
• Six patients showed clinical evidence of hair regrowth after at least 6 months of metformin treatment with one experiencing hair loss again 3 months after discontinuing treatment.
• Transcriptomic analysis revealed 34 upregulated genes, which included upregulated of 23 hair keratin-associated proteins, and pathways related to keratinization, epidermis development, and the hair cycle. In addition, eight genes were downregulated, with pathways that included those associated with extracellular matrix organization, collagen fibril organization, and collagen metabolism.
• Gene set variation analysis showed reduced expression of T helper 17 cell and epithelial-mesenchymal transition pathways and elevated adenosine monophosphate kinase signaling and keratin-associated proteins after treatment with metformin.

IN PRACTICE:

“Metformin’s ability to concomitantly target fibrosis and inflammation provides a plausible mechanism for its therapeutic effects in CCCA and other fibrosing alopecia disorders,” the authors concluded. But, they added, “larger prospective, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials are needed to rigorously evaluate metformin’s efficacy and optimal dosing for treatment of cicatricial alopecias.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aaron Bao, Department of Dermatology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and was published online on September 4 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

A small sample size, retrospective design, lack of a placebo control group, and the single-center setting limited the generalizability of the study findings. In addition, the absence of a validated activity or severity scale for CCCA and the single posttreatment sampling limit the assessment and comparison of clinical symptoms and transcriptomic changes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the American Academy of Dermatology. One author reported several ties with pharmaceutical companies, a pending patent, and authorship for the UpToDate section on CCCA.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Metformin significantly improved symptoms and resulted in hair regrowth in Black women with treatment-refractory central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA), in a retrospective case series.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a case series involving 12 Black women in their 30s, 40s, and 50s, with biopsy-confirmed, treatment-refractory CCCA, a chronic inflammatory hair disorder characterized by permanent hair loss, from the Johns Hopkins University alopecia clinic.
• Participants received CCCA treatment for at least 6 months and had stagnant or worsening symptoms before oral extended-release metformin (500 mg daily) was added to treatment. (Treatments included topical clobetasol, compounded minoxidil, and platelet-rich plasma injections.)
• Scalp biopsies were collected from four patients before and after metformin treatment to evaluate gene expression changes.
• Changes in clinical symptoms were assessed, including pruritus, inflammation, pain, scalp resistance, and hair regrowth, following initiation of metformin treatment.

TAKEAWAY:

• Metformin led to significant clinical improvement in eight patients, which included reductions in scalp pain, scalp resistance, pruritus, and inflammation. However, two patients experienced worsening symptoms.
• Six patients showed clinical evidence of hair regrowth after at least 6 months of metformin treatment with one experiencing hair loss again 3 months after discontinuing treatment.
• Transcriptomic analysis revealed 34 upregulated genes, which included upregulated of 23 hair keratin-associated proteins, and pathways related to keratinization, epidermis development, and the hair cycle. In addition, eight genes were downregulated, with pathways that included those associated with extracellular matrix organization, collagen fibril organization, and collagen metabolism.
• Gene set variation analysis showed reduced expression of T helper 17 cell and epithelial-mesenchymal transition pathways and elevated adenosine monophosphate kinase signaling and keratin-associated proteins after treatment with metformin.

IN PRACTICE:

“Metformin’s ability to concomitantly target fibrosis and inflammation provides a plausible mechanism for its therapeutic effects in CCCA and other fibrosing alopecia disorders,” the authors concluded. But, they added, “larger prospective, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials are needed to rigorously evaluate metformin’s efficacy and optimal dosing for treatment of cicatricial alopecias.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Aaron Bao, Department of Dermatology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and was published online on September 4 in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

A small sample size, retrospective design, lack of a placebo control group, and the single-center setting limited the generalizability of the study findings. In addition, the absence of a validated activity or severity scale for CCCA and the single posttreatment sampling limit the assessment and comparison of clinical symptoms and transcriptomic changes.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the American Academy of Dermatology. One author reported several ties with pharmaceutical companies, a pending patent, and authorship for the UpToDate section on CCCA.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Hormone-modulating therapy for breast cancer may protect older women from Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, although the protective effect varies by age and race, with the greatest benefit seen in younger Black women.

METHODOLOGY:

• Hormone-modulating therapy is widely used to treat hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, but the cognitive effects of the treatment, including a potential link to dementia, remain unclear.
• To investigate, researchers used the SEER-Medicare linked database to identify women aged 65 years or older with breast cancer who did and did not receive hormone-modulating therapy within 3 years following their diagnosis.
• The researchers excluded women with preexisting Alzheimer’s disease/dementia diagnoses or those who had received hormone-modulating therapy before their breast cancer diagnosis.
• Analyses were adjusted for demographic, sociocultural, and clinical variables, and subgroup analyses evaluated the impact of age, race, and type of hormone-modulating therapy on Alzheimer’s disease/dementia risk.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the 18,808 women included in the analysis, 66% received hormone-modulating therapy and 34% did not. During the mean follow-up of 12 years, 24% of hormone-modulating therapy users and 28% of nonusers developed Alzheimer’s disease/dementia.
• Overall, hormone-modulating therapy use (vs nonuse) was associated with a significant 7% lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease/dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; P = .005), with notable age and racial differences.
• Hormone-modulating therapy use was associated with a 24% lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease/dementia in Black women aged 65-74 years (HR, 0.76), but that protective effect decreased to 19% in Black women aged 75 years or older (HR, 0.81). White women aged 65-74 years who received hormone-modulating therapy (vs those who did not) had an 11% lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease/dementia (HR, 0.89), but the association disappeared among those aged 75 years or older (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.90-1.02). Other races demonstrated no significant association between hormone-modulating therapy use and Alzheimer’s disease/dementia.
• Overall, the use of an aromatase inhibitor or a selective estrogen receptor modulator was associated with a significantly lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease/dementia (HR, 0.93 and HR, 0.89, respectively).

IN PRACTICE:

Overall, the retrospective study found that “hormone therapy was associated with protection against [Alzheimer’s/dementia] in women aged 65 years or older with newly diagnosed breast cancer,” with the decrease in risk relatively greater for Black women and women younger than 75 years, the authors concluded.

“The results highlight the critical need for personalized breast cancer treatment plans that are tailored to the individual characteristics of each patient, particularly given the significantly higher likelihood (two to three times more) of Black women developing [Alzheimer’s/dementia], compared with their White counterparts,” the researchers added.
 

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Chao Cai, PhD, Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Outcomes Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, was published online on July 16 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study included only women aged 65 years or older, limiting generalizability to younger women. The dataset lacked genetic information and laboratory data related to dementia. The duration of hormone-modulating therapy use beyond 3 years and specific formulations were not assessed. Potential confounders such as variations in chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery were not fully addressed.

DISCLOSURES:

Support for the study was provided by the National Institutes of Health; Carolina Center on Alzheimer’s Disease and Minority Research pilot project; and the Dean’s Faculty Advancement Fund, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Hormone-modulating therapy for breast cancer may protect older women from Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, although the protective effect varies by age and race, with the greatest benefit seen in younger Black women.

METHODOLOGY:

• Hormone-modulating therapy is widely used to treat hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, but the cognitive effects of the treatment, including a potential link to dementia, remain unclear.
• To investigate, researchers used the SEER-Medicare linked database to identify women aged 65 years or older with breast cancer who did and did not receive hormone-modulating therapy within 3 years following their diagnosis.
• The researchers excluded women with preexisting Alzheimer’s disease/dementia diagnoses or those who had received hormone-modulating therapy before their breast cancer diagnosis.
• Analyses were adjusted for demographic, sociocultural, and clinical variables, and subgroup analyses evaluated the impact of age, race, and type of hormone-modulating therapy on Alzheimer’s disease/dementia risk.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the 18,808 women included in the analysis, 66% received hormone-modulating therapy and 34% did not. During the mean follow-up of 12 years, 24% of hormone-modulating therapy users and 28% of nonusers developed Alzheimer’s disease/dementia.
• Overall, hormone-modulating therapy use (vs nonuse) was associated with a significant 7% lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease/dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; P = .005), with notable age and racial differences.
• Hormone-modulating therapy use was associated with a 24% lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease/dementia in Black women aged 65-74 years (HR, 0.76), but that protective effect decreased to 19% in Black women aged 75 years or older (HR, 0.81). White women aged 65-74 years who received hormone-modulating therapy (vs those who did not) had an 11% lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease/dementia (HR, 0.89), but the association disappeared among those aged 75 years or older (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.90-1.02). Other races demonstrated no significant association between hormone-modulating therapy use and Alzheimer’s disease/dementia.
• Overall, the use of an aromatase inhibitor or a selective estrogen receptor modulator was associated with a significantly lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease/dementia (HR, 0.93 and HR, 0.89, respectively).

IN PRACTICE:

Overall, the retrospective study found that “hormone therapy was associated with protection against [Alzheimer’s/dementia] in women aged 65 years or older with newly diagnosed breast cancer,” with the decrease in risk relatively greater for Black women and women younger than 75 years, the authors concluded.

“The results highlight the critical need for personalized breast cancer treatment plans that are tailored to the individual characteristics of each patient, particularly given the significantly higher likelihood (two to three times more) of Black women developing [Alzheimer’s/dementia], compared with their White counterparts,” the researchers added.
 

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Chao Cai, PhD, Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Outcomes Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, was published online on July 16 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study included only women aged 65 years or older, limiting generalizability to younger women. The dataset lacked genetic information and laboratory data related to dementia. The duration of hormone-modulating therapy use beyond 3 years and specific formulations were not assessed. Potential confounders such as variations in chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery were not fully addressed.

DISCLOSURES:

Support for the study was provided by the National Institutes of Health; Carolina Center on Alzheimer’s Disease and Minority Research pilot project; and the Dean’s Faculty Advancement Fund, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

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

TOPLINE:

Hormone-modulating therapy for breast cancer may protect older women from Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias, although the protective effect varies by age and race, with the greatest benefit seen in younger Black women.

METHODOLOGY:

• Hormone-modulating therapy is widely used to treat hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, but the cognitive effects of the treatment, including a potential link to dementia, remain unclear.
• To investigate, researchers used the SEER-Medicare linked database to identify women aged 65 years or older with breast cancer who did and did not receive hormone-modulating therapy within 3 years following their diagnosis.
• The researchers excluded women with preexisting Alzheimer’s disease/dementia diagnoses or those who had received hormone-modulating therapy before their breast cancer diagnosis.
• Analyses were adjusted for demographic, sociocultural, and clinical variables, and subgroup analyses evaluated the impact of age, race, and type of hormone-modulating therapy on Alzheimer’s disease/dementia risk.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among the 18,808 women included in the analysis, 66% received hormone-modulating therapy and 34% did not. During the mean follow-up of 12 years, 24% of hormone-modulating therapy users and 28% of nonusers developed Alzheimer’s disease/dementia.
• Overall, hormone-modulating therapy use (vs nonuse) was associated with a significant 7% lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease/dementia (hazard ratio [HR], 0.93; P = .005), with notable age and racial differences.
• Hormone-modulating therapy use was associated with a 24% lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease/dementia in Black women aged 65-74 years (HR, 0.76), but that protective effect decreased to 19% in Black women aged 75 years or older (HR, 0.81). White women aged 65-74 years who received hormone-modulating therapy (vs those who did not) had an 11% lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease/dementia (HR, 0.89), but the association disappeared among those aged 75 years or older (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.90-1.02). Other races demonstrated no significant association between hormone-modulating therapy use and Alzheimer’s disease/dementia.
• Overall, the use of an aromatase inhibitor or a selective estrogen receptor modulator was associated with a significantly lower risk for Alzheimer’s disease/dementia (HR, 0.93 and HR, 0.89, respectively).

IN PRACTICE:

Overall, the retrospective study found that “hormone therapy was associated with protection against [Alzheimer’s/dementia] in women aged 65 years or older with newly diagnosed breast cancer,” with the decrease in risk relatively greater for Black women and women younger than 75 years, the authors concluded.

“The results highlight the critical need for personalized breast cancer treatment plans that are tailored to the individual characteristics of each patient, particularly given the significantly higher likelihood (two to three times more) of Black women developing [Alzheimer’s/dementia], compared with their White counterparts,” the researchers added.
 

SOURCE:

The study, with first author Chao Cai, PhD, Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Outcomes Sciences, University of South Carolina, Columbia, was published online on July 16 in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study included only women aged 65 years or older, limiting generalizability to younger women. The dataset lacked genetic information and laboratory data related to dementia. The duration of hormone-modulating therapy use beyond 3 years and specific formulations were not assessed. Potential confounders such as variations in chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery were not fully addressed.

DISCLOSURES:

Support for the study was provided by the National Institutes of Health; Carolina Center on Alzheimer’s Disease and Minority Research pilot project; and the Dean’s Faculty Advancement Fund, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The authors reported no relevant disclosures.

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

Financial relationships between physicians and industry are prevalent and complex and may have implications for patient care. A 2007 study reported that 94% of 3167 physicians surveyed had established some form of paid relationship with companies in the pharmaceutical industry.¹ To facilitate increased transparency around these relationships, lawmakers passed the Physician Payments Sunshine Act in 2010, which requires pharmaceutical companies and device manufacturers to report all payments made to physicians.² Mandatory disclosures include meals, honoraria, travel expenses, grants, and ownership or investment interests greater than $10. The information is displayed publicly in the Open Payments database (OPD)(https://openpayments-data.cms.gov/), a platform run by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The OPD allows for in-depth analyses of industry payments made to physicians. Many medical specialties—including orthopedics,^3-5 plastic surgery,^6,7 ophthalmology,⁸ and gastroenterology⁹—have published extensive literature characterizing the nature of these payments and disparities in the distribution of payments based on sex, geographic distribution, and other factors. After the first full year of OPD data collection for dermatology in 2014, Feng et al¹⁰ examined the number, amount, and nature of industry payments to dermatologists, as well as their geographic distribution for that year. As a follow-up to this initial research, Schlager et al¹¹ characterized payments made to dermatologists for the year 2016 and found an increase in the total payments, mean payments, and number of dermatologists receiving payments compared with the 2014 data.

Our study aimed to characterize the last 5 years of available OPD data—from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021—to further explore trends in industry payments made to dermatologists. In particular, we examined the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on payments as well as sex disparities and the distribution of industry payments.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of the OPD for the general payment datasets from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021. The results were filtered to include only payments made to dermatologists, excluding physicians from other specialties, physician assistants, and other types of practitioners. Data for each physician were grouped by National Provider Identifier (NPI) for providers included in the set, allowing for analysis at the individual level. Data on sex were extracted from the National Plan & Provider Enumeration System’s monthly data dissemination for NPIs for July 2023 (when the study was conducted) and were joined to the OPD data using the NPI number reported for each physician. All data were extracted, transformed, and analyzed using R software (version 4.2.1). Figures and visualizations were produced using Microsoft Excel 2016.

Results

In 2017, a total of 358,884 payments were made by industry to dermatologists, accounting for nearly $58.0 million. The mean total value of payments received per dermatologist was $5231.74, and the mean payment amount was $161.49. In 2018, the total number of payments increased year-over-year by 5.5% (378,509 payments), the total value of payments received increased by 7.5% (approximately $62.3 million), and the mean total value of payments received per dermatologist increased by 5.3% ($5508.98). In 2019, the total number of payments increased by 3.0% (389,670 total payments), the total value of payments recieved increased by 13.2% (approximately $70.5 million), and the mean total value of payments received per dermatologist increased by 11.3% ($6133.45). All of these values decreased in 2020, likely due to COVID-19–related restrictions on travel and meetings (total number of payments, 208,470 [−46.5%]; total value of payments received, approximately $37.5 million [−46.9%], mean total value of payments received per dermatologist, $3757.27 [−38.7%]), but the mean payment amount remained stable at $179.47. In 2021, the total number of payments (295,808 [+41.9%]), total value of payments received (approximately $50.3 million [+34.4%]), and mean total value of payments received per dermatologist ($4707.88 [+25.3%]) all rebounded, but not to pre-2020 levels (Table 1). When looking at the geographic distribution of payments, the top 5 states receiving the highest total value of payments during the study period included California ($41.51 million), New York ($32.26 million), Florida ($21.38 million), Texas ($19.93 million), and Pennsylvania ($11.69 million).

For each year from 2017 to 2021, more than 80% of payments made to dermatologists were less than $50. The majority (60.7%–75.8%) were in the $10 to $50 range. Between 4% and 5% of payments were more than $1000 for each year. Fewer than 10% of dermatologists received more than $5000 in total payments per year. Most dermatologists (33.3%–36.9%) received $100 to $500 per year. The distribution of payments stratified by number of payments made by amount and payment amount per dermatologist is further delineated in Table 2.

Comment

Benefits of Physician Relationships With Industry—The Physician Payments Sunshine Act increased transparency of industry payments to physicians by creating the OPD through which these relationships can be reported.¹² The effects of these relationships on treatment practices have been the subject of many studies in recent years. Some have suggested that industry ties may impact prescription patterns of endorsed medications.¹³ It also has been reported that the chance of a research study identifying a positive outcome for a particular treatment is higher when the study is funded by a pharmaceutical company compared to other sponsors.¹⁴ On the other hand, some researchers have argued that, when established and maintained in an ethical manner, industry-physician relationships may help practitioners stay updated on the newest treatment paradigms and benefit patient care.¹⁵ Industry relationships may help drive innovation of new products with direct input from frontline physicians who take care of the patients these products aim to help.

Limitations of the OPD—Critics of the OPD have argued that the reported data lack sufficient context and are not easily interpretable by most patients.¹⁶ In addition, many patients might not know about the existence of the database. Indeed, one national survey-based study showed that only 12% of 3542 respondents knew that this information was publicly available, and only 5% knew whether their own physician had received industry payments.¹⁷

Increased Payments From Industry—Our analysis builds on previously reported data in dermatology from 2014 to 2016.^10,11 We found that the trends of increasing numbers and dollar amounts of payments made by industry to dermatologists continued from 2017 to 2019, which may reflect the intended effects of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, as more payments are being reported in a transparent manner. It also shows that relationships between industry and dermatologists have become more commonplace over time.

It is important to consider these trends in the context of overall Medicare expenditures and prescription volumes. Between 2008 and 2021, prescription volumes have been increasing at a rate of 1% to 4% per year, with 2020 being an exception as the volume decreased slightly from the year prior due to COVID-19 (−3%). Similarly, total Medicare and Medicaid expenditures have been growing at a rate of almost 5% per year.¹⁸ Based on our study results, it appears the total value of payments made between 2017 and 2021 increased at a rate that outpaced prescription volume and expenditures; however, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the relationship between payments made to dermatologists and spending without examining prescriptions specific to dermatologists in the OPD dataset. This relationship could be further explored in future studies.

COVID-19 Restrictions Impacted Payments in 2021—We hypothesize that COVID-19–related restrictions on traveling and in-person meetings led to a decrease in the number of payments, total payment amount, and mean total value of payments received per dermatologist. Notably, compensation for services other than consulting, including speaking fees, had the most precipitous decrease in total payment amount. On the other hand, honoraria and consulting fees were least impacted, as many dermatologists were still able to maintain relationships with industry on an advisory basis without traveling. From 2020 to 2021, the number of total payments and dollar amounts increased with easing of COVID-19 restrictions; however, they had not yet rebounded to 2019 levels during the study period. It will be interesting to continue monitoring these trends once data from future years become available.

Top-Compensated Dermatologists—Our study results also show that for all years from 2017 through 2021, the majority of industry payments were made to a small concentrated percentage of top-compensated dermatologists, which may reflect larger and more frequent payments to those identified by pharmaceutical companies as thought leaders and key opinion leaders in the field or those who are more willing to establish extensive ties with industry. Similarly skewed distributions in payments have been shown in other medical subspecialties including neurosurgery, plastic surgery, otolaryngology, and orthopedics.^4,6,19,20 It also is apparent that the majority of compensated dermatologists in the OPD maintain relatively small ties with industry. For every year from 2017 to 2021, more than half of compensated dermatologists received total payments of less than $500 per year, most of which stemmed from the food and beverage category. Interestingly, a prior study showed that patient perceptions of industry-physician ties may be more strongly impacted by the payment category than the amount.²¹ For example, respondents viewed payments for meals and lodging more negatively, as they were seen more as personal gifts without direct benefit to patients. Conversely, respondents held more positive views of physicians who received free drug samples, which were perceived as benefiting patients, as well as those receiving consulting fees, which were perceived as a signal of physician expertise. Notably, in the same study, physicians who received no payments from industry were seen as honest but also were viewed by some respondents as being inexperienced or uninformed about new treatments.²¹

The contribution and public perception of dermatologists who conduct investigator-initiated research utilizing other types of funding (eg, government grants) also are important to consider but were not directly assessed within the scope of the current study.

Sex Disparities in Compensation—Multiple studies in the literature have demonstrated that sex inequities exist across medical specialties.^22,23 In dermatology, although women make up slightly more than 50% of board-certified dermatologists, they continue to be underrepresented compared with men in leadership positions, academic rank, research funding, and lectureships at national meetings.^24-27 In survey-based studies specifically examining gender-based physician compensation, male dermatologists were found to earn higher salaries than their female counterparts in both private practice and academic settings, even after adjusting for work hours, practice characteristics, and academic rank.^28,29

Our study contributes to the growing body of evidence suggesting that sex inequities also may exist with regard to financial payments from industry. Our results showed that, although the number of male and female dermatologists with industry relationships was similar each year, the number of payments made and total payment amount were both significantly (P<.001) higher for male dermatologists from 2017 through 2021. In 2021, the mean payment amount ($201.57 for male dermatologists; $117.73 for female dermatologists) and mean total amount of payments received ($6172.89 and $2957.79, respectively) also were significantly higher for male compared with female dermatologists (P<.001). The cause of this disparity likely is multifactorial and warrants additional studies in the future. One hypothesis in the existing literature is that male physicians may be more inclined to seek out relationships with industry; it also is possible that disparities in research funding, academic rank, and speaking opportunities at national conferences detailed previously may contribute to inequities in industry payments as companies seek out perceived leaders in the field.³⁰

Limitations and Future Directions—Several important limitations of our study warrant further consideration. As with any database study, the accuracy of the results presented and the conclusions drawn are highly dependent on the precision of the available data, which is reliant on transparent documentation by pharmaceutical companies and physicians. There are no independent methods of verifying the information reported. There have been reports in the literature questioning the utility of the OPD data and risk for misinterpretation.^16,31 Furthermore, the OPD only includes companies whose products are covered by government-sponsored programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and therefore does not encompass the totality of industry-dermatologist relationships. We also focused specifically on board-certified dermatologists and did not analyze the extent of industry relationships involving residents, nurses, physician assistants, and other critical members of health care teams that may impact patient care. Differences between academic and private practice payments also could not be examined using the OPD but could present an interesting area for future studies.

Despite these limitations, our study was extensive, using the publicly available OPD to analyze trends and disparities in financial relationships between dermatologists and industry partners from 2017 through 2021. Notably, these findings are not intended to provide judgment or seek to tease out financial relationships that are beneficial for patient care from those that are not; rather, they are intended only to lend additional transparency, provoke thought, and encourage future studies and discussion surrounding this important topic.

Conclusion

Financial relationships between dermatologists and industry are complex and are becoming more prevalent, as shown in our study. These relationships may be critical to facilitate novel patient-centered research and growth in the field of dermatology; however, they also have the potential to be seen as bias in patient care. Transparent reporting of these relationships is an important step in future research regarding the effects of different payment types and serves as the basis for further understanding industry-dermatologist relationships as well as any inequities that exist in the distribution of payments. We encourage all dermatologists to review their public profiles in the OPD. Physicians have the opportunity to review all payment data reported by companies and challenge the accuracy of the data if necessary.

Financial relationships between physicians and industry are prevalent and complex and may have implications for patient care. A 2007 study reported that 94% of 3167 physicians surveyed had established some form of paid relationship with companies in the pharmaceutical industry.¹ To facilitate increased transparency around these relationships, lawmakers passed the Physician Payments Sunshine Act in 2010, which requires pharmaceutical companies and device manufacturers to report all payments made to physicians.² Mandatory disclosures include meals, honoraria, travel expenses, grants, and ownership or investment interests greater than $10. The information is displayed publicly in the Open Payments database (OPD)(https://openpayments-data.cms.gov/), a platform run by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The OPD allows for in-depth analyses of industry payments made to physicians. Many medical specialties—including orthopedics,^3-5 plastic surgery,^6,7 ophthalmology,⁸ and gastroenterology⁹—have published extensive literature characterizing the nature of these payments and disparities in the distribution of payments based on sex, geographic distribution, and other factors. After the first full year of OPD data collection for dermatology in 2014, Feng et al¹⁰ examined the number, amount, and nature of industry payments to dermatologists, as well as their geographic distribution for that year. As a follow-up to this initial research, Schlager et al¹¹ characterized payments made to dermatologists for the year 2016 and found an increase in the total payments, mean payments, and number of dermatologists receiving payments compared with the 2014 data.

Our study aimed to characterize the last 5 years of available OPD data—from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021—to further explore trends in industry payments made to dermatologists. In particular, we examined the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on payments as well as sex disparities and the distribution of industry payments.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of the OPD for the general payment datasets from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021. The results were filtered to include only payments made to dermatologists, excluding physicians from other specialties, physician assistants, and other types of practitioners. Data for each physician were grouped by National Provider Identifier (NPI) for providers included in the set, allowing for analysis at the individual level. Data on sex were extracted from the National Plan & Provider Enumeration System’s monthly data dissemination for NPIs for July 2023 (when the study was conducted) and were joined to the OPD data using the NPI number reported for each physician. All data were extracted, transformed, and analyzed using R software (version 4.2.1). Figures and visualizations were produced using Microsoft Excel 2016.

Results

In 2017, a total of 358,884 payments were made by industry to dermatologists, accounting for nearly $58.0 million. The mean total value of payments received per dermatologist was $5231.74, and the mean payment amount was $161.49. In 2018, the total number of payments increased year-over-year by 5.5% (378,509 payments), the total value of payments received increased by 7.5% (approximately $62.3 million), and the mean total value of payments received per dermatologist increased by 5.3% ($5508.98). In 2019, the total number of payments increased by 3.0% (389,670 total payments), the total value of payments recieved increased by 13.2% (approximately $70.5 million), and the mean total value of payments received per dermatologist increased by 11.3% ($6133.45). All of these values decreased in 2020, likely due to COVID-19–related restrictions on travel and meetings (total number of payments, 208,470 [−46.5%]; total value of payments received, approximately $37.5 million [−46.9%], mean total value of payments received per dermatologist, $3757.27 [−38.7%]), but the mean payment amount remained stable at $179.47. In 2021, the total number of payments (295,808 [+41.9%]), total value of payments received (approximately $50.3 million [+34.4%]), and mean total value of payments received per dermatologist ($4707.88 [+25.3%]) all rebounded, but not to pre-2020 levels (Table 1). When looking at the geographic distribution of payments, the top 5 states receiving the highest total value of payments during the study period included California ($41.51 million), New York ($32.26 million), Florida ($21.38 million), Texas ($19.93 million), and Pennsylvania ($11.69 million).

For each year from 2017 to 2021, more than 80% of payments made to dermatologists were less than $50. The majority (60.7%–75.8%) were in the $10 to $50 range. Between 4% and 5% of payments were more than $1000 for each year. Fewer than 10% of dermatologists received more than $5000 in total payments per year. Most dermatologists (33.3%–36.9%) received $100 to $500 per year. The distribution of payments stratified by number of payments made by amount and payment amount per dermatologist is further delineated in Table 2.

Comment

Benefits of Physician Relationships With Industry—The Physician Payments Sunshine Act increased transparency of industry payments to physicians by creating the OPD through which these relationships can be reported.¹² The effects of these relationships on treatment practices have been the subject of many studies in recent years. Some have suggested that industry ties may impact prescription patterns of endorsed medications.¹³ It also has been reported that the chance of a research study identifying a positive outcome for a particular treatment is higher when the study is funded by a pharmaceutical company compared to other sponsors.¹⁴ On the other hand, some researchers have argued that, when established and maintained in an ethical manner, industry-physician relationships may help practitioners stay updated on the newest treatment paradigms and benefit patient care.¹⁵ Industry relationships may help drive innovation of new products with direct input from frontline physicians who take care of the patients these products aim to help.

Limitations of the OPD—Critics of the OPD have argued that the reported data lack sufficient context and are not easily interpretable by most patients.¹⁶ In addition, many patients might not know about the existence of the database. Indeed, one national survey-based study showed that only 12% of 3542 respondents knew that this information was publicly available, and only 5% knew whether their own physician had received industry payments.¹⁷

Increased Payments From Industry—Our analysis builds on previously reported data in dermatology from 2014 to 2016.^10,11 We found that the trends of increasing numbers and dollar amounts of payments made by industry to dermatologists continued from 2017 to 2019, which may reflect the intended effects of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, as more payments are being reported in a transparent manner. It also shows that relationships between industry and dermatologists have become more commonplace over time.

It is important to consider these trends in the context of overall Medicare expenditures and prescription volumes. Between 2008 and 2021, prescription volumes have been increasing at a rate of 1% to 4% per year, with 2020 being an exception as the volume decreased slightly from the year prior due to COVID-19 (−3%). Similarly, total Medicare and Medicaid expenditures have been growing at a rate of almost 5% per year.¹⁸ Based on our study results, it appears the total value of payments made between 2017 and 2021 increased at a rate that outpaced prescription volume and expenditures; however, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the relationship between payments made to dermatologists and spending without examining prescriptions specific to dermatologists in the OPD dataset. This relationship could be further explored in future studies.

COVID-19 Restrictions Impacted Payments in 2021—We hypothesize that COVID-19–related restrictions on traveling and in-person meetings led to a decrease in the number of payments, total payment amount, and mean total value of payments received per dermatologist. Notably, compensation for services other than consulting, including speaking fees, had the most precipitous decrease in total payment amount. On the other hand, honoraria and consulting fees were least impacted, as many dermatologists were still able to maintain relationships with industry on an advisory basis without traveling. From 2020 to 2021, the number of total payments and dollar amounts increased with easing of COVID-19 restrictions; however, they had not yet rebounded to 2019 levels during the study period. It will be interesting to continue monitoring these trends once data from future years become available.

Top-Compensated Dermatologists—Our study results also show that for all years from 2017 through 2021, the majority of industry payments were made to a small concentrated percentage of top-compensated dermatologists, which may reflect larger and more frequent payments to those identified by pharmaceutical companies as thought leaders and key opinion leaders in the field or those who are more willing to establish extensive ties with industry. Similarly skewed distributions in payments have been shown in other medical subspecialties including neurosurgery, plastic surgery, otolaryngology, and orthopedics.^4,6,19,20 It also is apparent that the majority of compensated dermatologists in the OPD maintain relatively small ties with industry. For every year from 2017 to 2021, more than half of compensated dermatologists received total payments of less than $500 per year, most of which stemmed from the food and beverage category. Interestingly, a prior study showed that patient perceptions of industry-physician ties may be more strongly impacted by the payment category than the amount.²¹ For example, respondents viewed payments for meals and lodging more negatively, as they were seen more as personal gifts without direct benefit to patients. Conversely, respondents held more positive views of physicians who received free drug samples, which were perceived as benefiting patients, as well as those receiving consulting fees, which were perceived as a signal of physician expertise. Notably, in the same study, physicians who received no payments from industry were seen as honest but also were viewed by some respondents as being inexperienced or uninformed about new treatments.²¹

The contribution and public perception of dermatologists who conduct investigator-initiated research utilizing other types of funding (eg, government grants) also are important to consider but were not directly assessed within the scope of the current study.

Sex Disparities in Compensation—Multiple studies in the literature have demonstrated that sex inequities exist across medical specialties.^22,23 In dermatology, although women make up slightly more than 50% of board-certified dermatologists, they continue to be underrepresented compared with men in leadership positions, academic rank, research funding, and lectureships at national meetings.^24-27 In survey-based studies specifically examining gender-based physician compensation, male dermatologists were found to earn higher salaries than their female counterparts in both private practice and academic settings, even after adjusting for work hours, practice characteristics, and academic rank.^28,29

Our study contributes to the growing body of evidence suggesting that sex inequities also may exist with regard to financial payments from industry. Our results showed that, although the number of male and female dermatologists with industry relationships was similar each year, the number of payments made and total payment amount were both significantly (P<.001) higher for male dermatologists from 2017 through 2021. In 2021, the mean payment amount ($201.57 for male dermatologists; $117.73 for female dermatologists) and mean total amount of payments received ($6172.89 and $2957.79, respectively) also were significantly higher for male compared with female dermatologists (P<.001). The cause of this disparity likely is multifactorial and warrants additional studies in the future. One hypothesis in the existing literature is that male physicians may be more inclined to seek out relationships with industry; it also is possible that disparities in research funding, academic rank, and speaking opportunities at national conferences detailed previously may contribute to inequities in industry payments as companies seek out perceived leaders in the field.³⁰

Limitations and Future Directions—Several important limitations of our study warrant further consideration. As with any database study, the accuracy of the results presented and the conclusions drawn are highly dependent on the precision of the available data, which is reliant on transparent documentation by pharmaceutical companies and physicians. There are no independent methods of verifying the information reported. There have been reports in the literature questioning the utility of the OPD data and risk for misinterpretation.^16,31 Furthermore, the OPD only includes companies whose products are covered by government-sponsored programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and therefore does not encompass the totality of industry-dermatologist relationships. We also focused specifically on board-certified dermatologists and did not analyze the extent of industry relationships involving residents, nurses, physician assistants, and other critical members of health care teams that may impact patient care. Differences between academic and private practice payments also could not be examined using the OPD but could present an interesting area for future studies.

Despite these limitations, our study was extensive, using the publicly available OPD to analyze trends and disparities in financial relationships between dermatologists and industry partners from 2017 through 2021. Notably, these findings are not intended to provide judgment or seek to tease out financial relationships that are beneficial for patient care from those that are not; rather, they are intended only to lend additional transparency, provoke thought, and encourage future studies and discussion surrounding this important topic.

Conclusion

Financial relationships between dermatologists and industry are complex and are becoming more prevalent, as shown in our study. These relationships may be critical to facilitate novel patient-centered research and growth in the field of dermatology; however, they also have the potential to be seen as bias in patient care. Transparent reporting of these relationships is an important step in future research regarding the effects of different payment types and serves as the basis for further understanding industry-dermatologist relationships as well as any inequities that exist in the distribution of payments. We encourage all dermatologists to review their public profiles in the OPD. Physicians have the opportunity to review all payment data reported by companies and challenge the accuracy of the data if necessary.

Financial relationships between physicians and industry are prevalent and complex and may have implications for patient care. A 2007 study reported that 94% of 3167 physicians surveyed had established some form of paid relationship with companies in the pharmaceutical industry.¹ To facilitate increased transparency around these relationships, lawmakers passed the Physician Payments Sunshine Act in 2010, which requires pharmaceutical companies and device manufacturers to report all payments made to physicians.² Mandatory disclosures include meals, honoraria, travel expenses, grants, and ownership or investment interests greater than $10. The information is displayed publicly in the Open Payments database (OPD)(https://openpayments-data.cms.gov/), a platform run by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The OPD allows for in-depth analyses of industry payments made to physicians. Many medical specialties—including orthopedics,^3-5 plastic surgery,^6,7 ophthalmology,⁸ and gastroenterology⁹—have published extensive literature characterizing the nature of these payments and disparities in the distribution of payments based on sex, geographic distribution, and other factors. After the first full year of OPD data collection for dermatology in 2014, Feng et al¹⁰ examined the number, amount, and nature of industry payments to dermatologists, as well as their geographic distribution for that year. As a follow-up to this initial research, Schlager et al¹¹ characterized payments made to dermatologists for the year 2016 and found an increase in the total payments, mean payments, and number of dermatologists receiving payments compared with the 2014 data.

Our study aimed to characterize the last 5 years of available OPD data—from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021—to further explore trends in industry payments made to dermatologists. In particular, we examined the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on payments as well as sex disparities and the distribution of industry payments.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of the OPD for the general payment datasets from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021. The results were filtered to include only payments made to dermatologists, excluding physicians from other specialties, physician assistants, and other types of practitioners. Data for each physician were grouped by National Provider Identifier (NPI) for providers included in the set, allowing for analysis at the individual level. Data on sex were extracted from the National Plan & Provider Enumeration System’s monthly data dissemination for NPIs for July 2023 (when the study was conducted) and were joined to the OPD data using the NPI number reported for each physician. All data were extracted, transformed, and analyzed using R software (version 4.2.1). Figures and visualizations were produced using Microsoft Excel 2016.

Results

In 2017, a total of 358,884 payments were made by industry to dermatologists, accounting for nearly $58.0 million. The mean total value of payments received per dermatologist was $5231.74, and the mean payment amount was $161.49. In 2018, the total number of payments increased year-over-year by 5.5% (378,509 payments), the total value of payments received increased by 7.5% (approximately $62.3 million), and the mean total value of payments received per dermatologist increased by 5.3% ($5508.98). In 2019, the total number of payments increased by 3.0% (389,670 total payments), the total value of payments recieved increased by 13.2% (approximately $70.5 million), and the mean total value of payments received per dermatologist increased by 11.3% ($6133.45). All of these values decreased in 2020, likely due to COVID-19–related restrictions on travel and meetings (total number of payments, 208,470 [−46.5%]; total value of payments received, approximately $37.5 million [−46.9%], mean total value of payments received per dermatologist, $3757.27 [−38.7%]), but the mean payment amount remained stable at $179.47. In 2021, the total number of payments (295,808 [+41.9%]), total value of payments received (approximately $50.3 million [+34.4%]), and mean total value of payments received per dermatologist ($4707.88 [+25.3%]) all rebounded, but not to pre-2020 levels (Table 1). When looking at the geographic distribution of payments, the top 5 states receiving the highest total value of payments during the study period included California ($41.51 million), New York ($32.26 million), Florida ($21.38 million), Texas ($19.93 million), and Pennsylvania ($11.69 million).

For each year from 2017 to 2021, more than 80% of payments made to dermatologists were less than $50. The majority (60.7%–75.8%) were in the $10 to $50 range. Between 4% and 5% of payments were more than $1000 for each year. Fewer than 10% of dermatologists received more than $5000 in total payments per year. Most dermatologists (33.3%–36.9%) received $100 to $500 per year. The distribution of payments stratified by number of payments made by amount and payment amount per dermatologist is further delineated in Table 2.

Comment

Benefits of Physician Relationships With Industry—The Physician Payments Sunshine Act increased transparency of industry payments to physicians by creating the OPD through which these relationships can be reported.¹² The effects of these relationships on treatment practices have been the subject of many studies in recent years. Some have suggested that industry ties may impact prescription patterns of endorsed medications.¹³ It also has been reported that the chance of a research study identifying a positive outcome for a particular treatment is higher when the study is funded by a pharmaceutical company compared to other sponsors.¹⁴ On the other hand, some researchers have argued that, when established and maintained in an ethical manner, industry-physician relationships may help practitioners stay updated on the newest treatment paradigms and benefit patient care.¹⁵ Industry relationships may help drive innovation of new products with direct input from frontline physicians who take care of the patients these products aim to help.

Limitations of the OPD—Critics of the OPD have argued that the reported data lack sufficient context and are not easily interpretable by most patients.¹⁶ In addition, many patients might not know about the existence of the database. Indeed, one national survey-based study showed that only 12% of 3542 respondents knew that this information was publicly available, and only 5% knew whether their own physician had received industry payments.¹⁷

Increased Payments From Industry—Our analysis builds on previously reported data in dermatology from 2014 to 2016.^10,11 We found that the trends of increasing numbers and dollar amounts of payments made by industry to dermatologists continued from 2017 to 2019, which may reflect the intended effects of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, as more payments are being reported in a transparent manner. It also shows that relationships between industry and dermatologists have become more commonplace over time.

It is important to consider these trends in the context of overall Medicare expenditures and prescription volumes. Between 2008 and 2021, prescription volumes have been increasing at a rate of 1% to 4% per year, with 2020 being an exception as the volume decreased slightly from the year prior due to COVID-19 (−3%). Similarly, total Medicare and Medicaid expenditures have been growing at a rate of almost 5% per year.¹⁸ Based on our study results, it appears the total value of payments made between 2017 and 2021 increased at a rate that outpaced prescription volume and expenditures; however, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the relationship between payments made to dermatologists and spending without examining prescriptions specific to dermatologists in the OPD dataset. This relationship could be further explored in future studies.

COVID-19 Restrictions Impacted Payments in 2021—We hypothesize that COVID-19–related restrictions on traveling and in-person meetings led to a decrease in the number of payments, total payment amount, and mean total value of payments received per dermatologist. Notably, compensation for services other than consulting, including speaking fees, had the most precipitous decrease in total payment amount. On the other hand, honoraria and consulting fees were least impacted, as many dermatologists were still able to maintain relationships with industry on an advisory basis without traveling. From 2020 to 2021, the number of total payments and dollar amounts increased with easing of COVID-19 restrictions; however, they had not yet rebounded to 2019 levels during the study period. It will be interesting to continue monitoring these trends once data from future years become available.

Top-Compensated Dermatologists—Our study results also show that for all years from 2017 through 2021, the majority of industry payments were made to a small concentrated percentage of top-compensated dermatologists, which may reflect larger and more frequent payments to those identified by pharmaceutical companies as thought leaders and key opinion leaders in the field or those who are more willing to establish extensive ties with industry. Similarly skewed distributions in payments have been shown in other medical subspecialties including neurosurgery, plastic surgery, otolaryngology, and orthopedics.^4,6,19,20 It also is apparent that the majority of compensated dermatologists in the OPD maintain relatively small ties with industry. For every year from 2017 to 2021, more than half of compensated dermatologists received total payments of less than $500 per year, most of which stemmed from the food and beverage category. Interestingly, a prior study showed that patient perceptions of industry-physician ties may be more strongly impacted by the payment category than the amount.²¹ For example, respondents viewed payments for meals and lodging more negatively, as they were seen more as personal gifts without direct benefit to patients. Conversely, respondents held more positive views of physicians who received free drug samples, which were perceived as benefiting patients, as well as those receiving consulting fees, which were perceived as a signal of physician expertise. Notably, in the same study, physicians who received no payments from industry were seen as honest but also were viewed by some respondents as being inexperienced or uninformed about new treatments.²¹

The contribution and public perception of dermatologists who conduct investigator-initiated research utilizing other types of funding (eg, government grants) also are important to consider but were not directly assessed within the scope of the current study.

Sex Disparities in Compensation—Multiple studies in the literature have demonstrated that sex inequities exist across medical specialties.^22,23 In dermatology, although women make up slightly more than 50% of board-certified dermatologists, they continue to be underrepresented compared with men in leadership positions, academic rank, research funding, and lectureships at national meetings.^24-27 In survey-based studies specifically examining gender-based physician compensation, male dermatologists were found to earn higher salaries than their female counterparts in both private practice and academic settings, even after adjusting for work hours, practice characteristics, and academic rank.^28,29

Our study contributes to the growing body of evidence suggesting that sex inequities also may exist with regard to financial payments from industry. Our results showed that, although the number of male and female dermatologists with industry relationships was similar each year, the number of payments made and total payment amount were both significantly (P<.001) higher for male dermatologists from 2017 through 2021. In 2021, the mean payment amount ($201.57 for male dermatologists; $117.73 for female dermatologists) and mean total amount of payments received ($6172.89 and $2957.79, respectively) also were significantly higher for male compared with female dermatologists (P<.001). The cause of this disparity likely is multifactorial and warrants additional studies in the future. One hypothesis in the existing literature is that male physicians may be more inclined to seek out relationships with industry; it also is possible that disparities in research funding, academic rank, and speaking opportunities at national conferences detailed previously may contribute to inequities in industry payments as companies seek out perceived leaders in the field.³⁰

Limitations and Future Directions—Several important limitations of our study warrant further consideration. As with any database study, the accuracy of the results presented and the conclusions drawn are highly dependent on the precision of the available data, which is reliant on transparent documentation by pharmaceutical companies and physicians. There are no independent methods of verifying the information reported. There have been reports in the literature questioning the utility of the OPD data and risk for misinterpretation.^16,31 Furthermore, the OPD only includes companies whose products are covered by government-sponsored programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and therefore does not encompass the totality of industry-dermatologist relationships. We also focused specifically on board-certified dermatologists and did not analyze the extent of industry relationships involving residents, nurses, physician assistants, and other critical members of health care teams that may impact patient care. Differences between academic and private practice payments also could not be examined using the OPD but could present an interesting area for future studies.

Despite these limitations, our study was extensive, using the publicly available OPD to analyze trends and disparities in financial relationships between dermatologists and industry partners from 2017 through 2021. Notably, these findings are not intended to provide judgment or seek to tease out financial relationships that are beneficial for patient care from those that are not; rather, they are intended only to lend additional transparency, provoke thought, and encourage future studies and discussion surrounding this important topic.

Conclusion

Financial relationships between dermatologists and industry are complex and are becoming more prevalent, as shown in our study. These relationships may be critical to facilitate novel patient-centered research and growth in the field of dermatology; however, they also have the potential to be seen as bias in patient care. Transparent reporting of these relationships is an important step in future research regarding the effects of different payment types and serves as the basis for further understanding industry-dermatologist relationships as well as any inequities that exist in the distribution of payments. We encourage all dermatologists to review their public profiles in the OPD. Physicians have the opportunity to review all payment data reported by companies and challenge the accuracy of the data if necessary.