A Blueprint for Increasing Ethnic and Racial Diversity in U.S. Residency Training Programs.

PROBLEM: People who identify as African Americans, Latinos, or from indigenous backgrounds, are dramatically underrepresented in the U.S. physician workforce. It is critical for academic health centers to recognize racial and ethnic diversity at the residency level and implement changes to enhance diversity among trainees. APPROACH: The Office of Graduate Medical Education (GME) at the University of Pennsylvania Health System (UPHS) developed a multipronged approach to enhance diversity and inclusion (D&I) among residency trainees. The approach included the development of an underrepresented in medicine (UIM) professional network; UIM-focused visiting clerkship programs; holistic review implementation by selection committees; and targeted outreach to UIM candidates, overseen by an associate designated institutional official for UIM Affairs. The authors reported demographic data on residency applicants invited for interviews and matching for all programs at UPHS from 2014-2015 (baseline) to 2020-2021. They also reported data on maximum ranking number programs reached to fill their positions and the average United States Medical License Examination (USMLE) Step 1 scores of matched candidates. Finally, they discussed the implications for leaders who wish to enhance D&I at academic health centers. OUTCOMES: During the baseline year (2014-2015), UIMs represented 12.1% of interviewees and 8.7% of all matched candidates into UPHS residency programs. Over the successive 6 years after incremental implementation of the approach, UIM representation steadily increased. In 2020-2021, UIMs represented 23.2% of interviewees and 26.4% of matched candidates. Programs' maximum rank number to fill and USMLE Step 1 scores of matched candidates remained relatively unchanged. NEXT STEPS: The UPHS Office of GME incorporated a purposeful approach to enhance the D&I of its residents. Across 6 years of implementation, UIM representation among resident matches tripled while quantitative program and candidate metrics remained unchanged. Similar efforts should be given further consideration for implementation and evaluation nationwide.

Does biologic therapy impact the development of PsA among patients with psoriasis?

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association of biologic therapy use for psoriasis with incident psoriatic arthritis (PsA) diagnosis. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in the OptumInsights Electronic Health Record Database between 2006 and 2017 among patients with psoriasis between the ages of 16 and 90 initiating a therapy for psoriasis (oral, biologic or phototherapy). The incidence of PsA was calculated within each therapy group. Multivariable Cox models were used to calculate the HR for biologic versus oral or phototherapy using biologics as a time-varying exposure and next in a propensity score-matched cohort. RESULTS: Among 1 93 709 patients with psoriasis without PsA, 14 569 biologic and 20 321 cumulative oral therapy and phototherapy initiations were identified. Mean age was lower among biologic initiators compared with oral/phototherapy initiators (45.9 vs 49.8). The incidence of PsA regardless of therapy exposure was 9.75 per 1000 person-years compared with 77.26 among biologic users, 61.99 among oral therapy users, 26.11 among phototherapy users and 5.85 among those without a prescription for one of the target therapies. Using a multivariable adjustment approach with time-varying exposure, adjusted HR (95% CI) for biologic users was 4.48 (4.23 to 4.75) compared with oral or phototherapy users. After propensity score matching, the HR (95% CI) was 2.14 (2.00 to 2.28). CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective cohort study, biologic use was associated with the development of PsA among patients with psoriasis. This may be related to confounding by indication and protopathic bias. Prospective studies are needed to address this important question.