Ahmad Masri, MD, MS, is the director of the Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Center at Oregon Health and Science University. 

Using Biomarkers to Monitor ATTR-CM

Summary for Physicians: Long-Term Monitoring in ATTR-CM and Biomarkers Used

 (transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy) involves regular clinical assessments, imaging studies, and biomarker evaluations to track disease progression and manage complications. Key aspects of monitoring include:

Regular assessment of cardiac symptoms such as heart failure, arrhythmias, and functional status

Monitoring for signs of organ involvement beyond the heart, as ATTR-CM can affect other organs, such as the liver and nervous system

 to assess left ventricular function and wall thickness

 to evaluate myocardial involvement and amyloid deposits

 to detect amyloid deposition in the heart

N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP):

 A marker for heart failure, often elevated in ATTR-CM

 Can indicate myocardial injury or stress, which may be elevated in patients with ATTR-CM

 Helpful in distinguishing ATTR-CM from other forms of amyloidosis, such as light chain amyloidosis

 Can be elevated in systemic inflammation associated with amyloidosis

TTR genetic testing and serum TTR concentration

 may help to confirm the diagnosis and assess familial risk.

, including exercise tolerance and quality of life (using tools such as the 6-minute walk test and patient-reported outcome measures).

Monitoring these biomarkers, alongside clinical and imaging evaluations, helps physicians track the progression of ATTR-CM, adjust therapies, and intervene early in cases of disease progression or complications. Regular follow-up is essential for optimizing management and improving patient outcomes.

Panelists discuss how long-term monitoring in transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM) involves regular clinical assessments, imaging studies, and biomarker evaluations—such as NT-proBNP, troponin, and TTR testing—to track disease progression, manage complications, and optimize patient outcomes.

Ahmad Masri, MD, MS

In our last few minutes, we’re going to go around the table. What’s 1 key takeaway point that you want to drill home to our audience? I’d like to have everyone get a chance to give their takeaway. I’ll start with Pam. What’s the message you want to emphasize?

My takeaway is to look for subclinical atherosclerosis. That’s where we can make a huge impact. Once somebody has had a heart attack or a stroke, the cat’s out of the bag. We know what we have to do. We know we have to be aggressive. But look for subclinical atherosclerosis, whether it’s through coronary calcium scoring or other biomarkers, and treat those patients aggressively.

My point is around LDL [low-density lipoprotein] lowering and achieving that we know that what the drugs do and the LDL lowering they achieve. As caregivers, we have to be committed to getting patients to appropriate LDL levels because it will change outcomes. Creating the rationale, explaining the rationale, and educating around that is essential. We use the tools we have to achieve those LDLs. It’s important to do it. We just have to be fully committed to it.

Use the tools. We have terrific tools. If you started out with nothing 20 or 30 years ago, look what we have to prevent heart disease. We have a potpourri of drugs, whether it’s for blood pressure, lipids, or diabetes, to help the patient. Looking at the patient with type 2 diabetes, think of that patient as a heart attack waiting to happen. I heard a very wise cardiologist say, “Having an event is 1 bad day.” In primary prevention and secondary prevention, for patients who have high cardiac calcium scores, it’s a bad day that they had the event. Treat them as someone who had an event. Be aggressive with that patient. Outline to them that you want to prevent the first event.

I have 2 takeaways. When we see patients struggling with lipids, sometimes we don’t take as much time on top to talk about lifestyle. It’s important to reiterate the importance of exercise and healthy diet in every visit with every patient. My second takeaway is that it’s also important to use all the medicine we have in our armamentarium to get to an LDL of less than 55 mg/dL to address diabetes. To address weight, we have many options that help patients lose weight. That’s key with addressing lipids: addressing every risk factor that we can think of.

My takeaway is that I like thinking about LDL years and minimizing the total duration of exposure to these atherogenic particles. We need to lower LDL for longer and get there faster. We need to think about combination therapy up front earlier because these patients are very high risk. We need to intensify therapy every 4 to 12 weeks to overcome some of this inertia.

Thank you all for this rich and informative discussion. Thank you for watching this 

. If you enjoyed the content, please subscribe to our e-newsletters to receive upcoming 

 and other great content right in your in-box.

Drs Erin Michos, Pam Taub, Robert Busch, Alison Bailey, and Jorge Plutzky offer key takeaways in the management of hypercholesterolemia and ASCVD.

Key Takeaways for Lipid Lowering in Hypercholesterolemia and ASCVD

Alison Bailey, MD, FACC

An original version of this article was published in Practical Cardiology.

I received my COVID-19 vaccination today.

It was a well-organized process. I received emails, registered, and booked a date and time. The check-in and screening were smooth, and after a brief wait, I was up. I am part of the first phase of vaccinations, and so not many anecdotal reports to go on—some with sore shoulders; one colleague with a 24-hour febrile reaction.

My injection did not hurt at all. No noticeable reaction in the days following. And just like that, it finally feels like there is a light at the end of the tunnel that is the COVID-19 pandemic. It feels like a lifetime ago that news of a novel virus was beginning to spread around the world.

In our era of news as entertainment, at first it seemed to be overblown and overstated. Then Italy became bad. Then New York City reported cases. Then New York became bad. I have family members who live in Queens, and almost all of them contracted it, although luckily had mild enough cases to not need hospital care. But the daily reports were harrowing, and for the rest of us it was clearly just a matter of time.

I work in a private cardiology practice in Connecticut, and cover our admitting hospital for a week at a time. Suddenly nothing seemed clear, or safe. In our office, we had a series of hastily assembled partner meetings, and then again with our staff, planning our defense. There was suddenly a hunt for PPE, and screening protocols, and quick adoption of a telehealth platform; but still mostly uncertainty.

Our local hospital numbers spiked, and all of the complications we had read about were now in our hands. Hypoxia, and thrombosis, and widespread inflammation, and rapid decompensation. Colleagues started getting infected. Some died.

I was now coming home directly into our garage, stripping off, putting all my non-clothing items into a UV sterilizing oven, and then showering, before greeting my family. Schools closed. Roads were quiet. Even grocery shopping felt hazardous. We never closed our office, but our volume dipped significantly, and now every in-person visit and hospitalization for a cardiac issue came with an additional gamble of infection.

I am fortunate to live in an area where most were taking the pandemic, and it’s restrictions, seriously. Without overwhelming our healthcare facilities, numbers came down, and we all carried on. We are now in the midst of another surge, due to multiple shortcomings - leadership, planning, insight, trust, resolve. It feels different in our office and in the hospital though.

We know more, and there is at least a degree of predictability and familiarity now. Our office volume is busier than ever, as most patients realize we are in this predicament for the long haul. And now there is a vaccine.

In a frustrating time of science and expertise denial, scientists and experts have accomplished a massive flex, and we have a way out. History now awaits our decision on whether to accept this or not. For how little I have been able to help those with COVID-19 up to this point, my biggest contribution as a healthcare worker is to take the vaccination without hesitation. And, by example, lead others to do the same.

A lipidologist from Connecticut describes his experience during the COVID-19 pandemic and explains why he sees getting the vaccine as his "biggest contribution" to healthcare during the pandemic.

Brett Nowlan, MD: My Year Working During a Pandemic

Brett Nowlan, MD

Clinical Professor, Cumming School of Medicine, and Child Health & Wellness Researcher, Alberta Children's Hospital Research Institute, at University of Calgary

HCPLive Five at ADA Scientific Sessions 2025

2025 American Diabetes Association (ADA) Scientific Sessions, held June 20–23 in Chicago

, reflected a shifting paradigm in diabetes care prioritizing comprehensive approaches to glucose management, cardiometabolic health, and patient-centered outcomes. This year’s meeting featured a diverse slate of groundbreaking research spanning automated insulin delivery, weekly insulin alternatives, and novel interventions tackling unique drivers of glycemic dysregulation.

Among the most talked-about data were CIRCUIT trial findings on automated insulin delivery systems improving time-in-range during pregnancy; the QWINT program’s demonstration that once-weekly insulin efsitora alfa can effectively replace daily basal insulin; and evidence supporting prediabetes remission as a superior goal to weight loss for type 2 diabetes prevention. Additional highlights included the CATALYST trial’s success with mifepristone in hypercortisolism-related diabetes and the STRIDE trial’s new insights into semaglutide’s effects on walking capacity and disease progression in patients with type 2 diabetes and peripheral artery disease.

Hybrid Closed Loop Insulin Improves Time in Range for T1D During Pregnancy, with Lois Donovan, MD, and Denice Feig, MD, MSc

The CIRCUIT trial compared an automated insulin delivery (AID) system using Control-IQ technology to standard care in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes, presented at ADA 2025 by Lois Donovan, MD, and Denice Feig, MD. Participants using the hybrid closed-loop system achieved a 12.6% (95% CI, 9.9–15.2; 

<.001) higher time in range during pregnancy (TIRp) compared with standard care (65.4% vs. 50.3%). Additionally, the AID group had 11.4% (95% CI, 8.6–14.2; 

<.001) less time above range, 1.04% (95% CI, 0.6–1.48; 

<.001) less time below 63 mg/dL, and a mean glucose 11.2 mg/dL lower than standard care (95% CI, 7.2–16.2; 

Once-Weekly Insulin Efsitora a Practical Option for Type 2 Diabetes, with Athena Philis-Tsimikas, MD

The QWINT-3 phase 3 trial investigated weekly insulin efsitora alfa versus daily insulin degludec in patients with type 2 diabetes switching from basal insulin, presented at ADA 2025 by Athena Philis-Tsimikas, MD. Weekly efsitora injections were non-inferior to daily degludec for glycemic control, supporting its potential as a practical alternative. Philis-Tsimikas noted the findings suggest switching to weekly insulin could substantially reduce treatment burden for patients.

Glycemic Control Trumps Weight Loss for Type 2 Diabetes Prevention, with Arvid Sandforth, MD

A prediabetes lifestyle intervention study presented by Arvid Sandforth, MD, at ADA 2025 showed achieving normal glycemia, regardless of weight change, provided the same protective effect against developing type 2 diabetes. Participants achieving glycemic remission experienced significantly reduced T2D incidence even if they maintained or gained weight, compared to those who did not normalize glycemia. The multicenter German study highlighted that while weight loss remains a powerful tool, achieving glycemic control should be prioritized as the primary prevention target.

Diabetes Dialogue: CATALYST Trial, Mifepristone, and Hypercortisolism in T2D, with John Buse, MD, PhD

The phase 4 CATALYST trial enrolled 1055 adults with type 2 diabetes and HbA1c >7.5% despite optimized therapy, screening for hypercortisolism using dexamethasone suppression testing, which identified a 24% prevalence (95% CI, 21.4–26.7%). In part 2, 136 patients with confirmed hypercortisolism were randomized 2:1 to mifepristone or placebo for 24 weeks, with mifepristone reducing HbA1c by 1.3 percentage points versus placebo (95% CI, –1.81 to –0.83; 

 <.001). Secondary outcomes showed reductions of 5.12 kg in body weight (95% CI, –8.20 to –2.03) and 5.1 cm in waist circumference (95% CI, –8.23 to –1.99) relative to placebo.

New Data Supports Protective Vascular Effects of Semaglutide in T2D and PAD, with Subodh Verma, MD, PhD

The STRIDE trial randomized 792 adults with T2D and PAD to semaglutide (n=396) or placebo (n=396) for 52 weeks, presented by Subodh Verma, MD, PhD, at ADA 2025. Patients receiving semaglutide showed a median baseline-adjusted maximum walking distance ratio of 1.21 compared with 1.08 for placebo. Semaglutide also reduced the risk of a composite disease progression endpoint—including death, major adverse limb events, or rescue medication use—by 54% relative to placebo.

These 5 represent only some of the data the 

 team covered at this year's meeting! Check out more KOL insight and our full conference coverage on our 

From uncovering new benefits of semaglutide to targeting hypercortisolism in people with type 2 diabetes, here are 5 key updates from the annual meeting.

Lois Donovan, MD

It’s widely recognized that our health is determined by more than our genetics. Socioeconomic factors, physical activity, nutrition, substance use, and even job stress are among the many other factors that play a role. Now, Yale researchers, led by 

 associate professor of surgery (general, trauma, and surgical critical care) at Yale School of Medicine (YSM), recently published two studies that identify populations of older Americans that could be at greater risk for earlier death or disability based on where they live.

The researchers created new composite indices to identify populations of Americans 65 years of age and older whose overall health could be affected by specific state- and county-level conditions. These indices—the geriatric index of state-level health policy contextual disadvantage (called the “GERi-State” index) and the geriatric index of county-level multi-dimensional contextual disadvantage (the “GERi-County” index)—consider measurements such as tobacco taxes and the number of older adults living below the poverty line at the state level, and median household income and physician density at the county level, to assess health risks for older Americans.

The researchers found that older Americans in the lowest 20% of both the state and county-level indices were at significantly higher risk for mortality. Older Americans in the lowest 20% of the county-level index were more susceptible to several types of age-related health conditions, including frailty, probable dementia, and disability, meaning the inability to perform tasks associated with daily living, such as getting out of bed and getting dressed. Their findings were published in 

Journal of the American Geriatrics Society

Our research shows that these geographic factors appear to be vitally important in assessing health risks in this population. These two studies are just the start of trying to understand the crossroads of older Americans, disadvantage, and health, including major surgery.
Robert D. Becher, MD

Becher, a surgeon by training, explains that his interest in geriatric health outcomes based on geography came about because of the differences he saw in post-surgical outcomes among his older patients. He notes that while 

one in every seven older Americans will need major surgery

 at some point in the years ahead, in his own practice he observed that some patients experienced significantly better recovery than others. That led him to ask deeper questions about what kinds of factors affect older Americans’ overall health outcomes.

“One of the most consistent findings in the medical literature is that place matters,” he explains. “The social, economic, environmental, and policy contexts at different geographic levels create complex structural conditions in daily life that are fundamental determinants of health outcomes, rather than just mediators.”

Becher’s goal is to understand why different populations of older adults have different outcomes after major surgery, which could ultimately lead to better health outcomes, systems, practices, and policies that improve care for all older people in the United States.

Creating single indices that measured state- and county-level factors that could contribute to health differences, Becher reasoned, would help inform health policy at the state and county levels aimed toward improving the health of older adults.

, Becher and his research team, used, in part, the World Health Organization’s socio-ecological framework to help determine which factors to use in their composite indices. The framework is a theoretical model that describes the many measurable factors that shape health and health outcomes across societies.

The research team included co-senior author 

 Humana Foundation Professor of Medicine (Geriatrics) at YSM and professor of epidemiology (chronic diseases) at Yale School of Public Health (YSPH); 

 assistant professor of sociology in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, of biostatistics at YSPH, and of global affairs; 

 assistant professor of biostatistics at YSPH; and 

, a postdoctoral associate in the Department of Internal Medicine at YSM.

For their indices, the researchers focused on factors that could potentially be modified at the state and county levels through legislation, for example, or improvements in health policy. They focused on variables that could be measured in all 50 U.S. states for which historical data existed for the period from 2006 to 2019. For example, state-level variables included preventable hospital stays, which are highly correlated with health care accessibility and quality; county-level variables include physician density, which predicts a local population’s ability to access preventive care as well as care for chronic conditions. States and counties were considered socially disadvantaged if they scored in the lowest 20% of the GERi-State and/or the GERi-County indices.

Using these criteria, the researchers classified 10 of 50 U.S. states and 627 of 3,132 counties as “disadvantaged.” The disadvantaged states were generally concentrated in the American South in both timeframes studied. Disadvantaged counties were more widely spread out, mostly located in the American South, as well as the southwest and western portions of the United States.

From there, the researchers looked at death rates in the 65-and-older population of each state and county being studied, focusing on community-living older adults—those who were able to participate in the life of their community, as opposed to being treated in a nursing home. The researchers examined whether the disadvantaged states and counties showed statistically significant higher rates of death in this older population.

 the same team of researchers, along with YSM biostatistician 

 examined rates of frailty, probable dementia, and disability, in disadvantaged vs. non-disadvantaged counties.

Geography affects health at both the state and county level

The researchers found that mortality rates were consistently higher in both disadvantaged counties and disadvantaged states for two time periods, 2010-2015 and 2014-2019. For these time periods (used to test the robustness of the indices over different time periods), disadvantaged states showed an 11% and a 14% increased risk of premature mortality, respectively. Disadvantaged counties showed a 10% increased risk of premature mortality in both time periods.

In the second study, the researchers found that among 7,499 study participants in the 65-and-older age range, the five-year incidence rates for all health conditions measured—frailty, dementia, and disability—were significantly higher in the disadvantaged versus non-disadvantaged counties.

Becher hopes that these studies will help highlight the importance of geography when considering the health and well-being of older Americans.

“Our research shows that these geographic factors appear to be vitally important in assessing health risks in this population,” Becher says. “These two studies are just the start of trying to understand the crossroads of older Americans, disadvantage, and health, including major surgery.”

The research reported in this news article was supported by Yale Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center (award P30AG021342), the National Institute on Aging (award U01AG032947), the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (award R01MD017298), and Yale University. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Yale researchers have developed indices to assess health risks for older Americans based on geographic factors, identifying populations at higher risk for mortality and age-related conditions. The GERi-State and GERi-County indices evaluate state- and county-level conditions, such as tobacco taxes and physician density, to determine health disadvantages. Findings indicate that older adults in disadvantaged areas face increased risks of mortality, frailty, dementia, and disability. These studies underscore the significance of geographic factors in health outcomes and aim to inform policies to improve care for older populations.

Yale researchers reveal how geographic factors impact health risks for older Americans, highlighting disparities in mortality and disability rates.

Yale: Geographic Location Affects Health Risks in Older Adults

N.G. Boeck

Raffi Tachdjian, MD, MPH, FAAAAI, FACAAI: 

Let’s switch gears to barriers in the use of biologics in clinical practice. Dr White, do you see any trends or utilization differences, with the penetration of therapeutics, into the lives of patients with severe asthma, moderate to severe asthma, eosinophilic asthma, and difficult-to-treat asthma, among primary care providers or physicians vs the specialists?

In terms of thinking about how you titled this section, the barriers, I haven’t seen much of a trend of use in primary care physicians for biologics. There are multiple reasons for that. There’s a lot of what we’ve outlined, how complex it can be to decide what agent you might start a patient on. There’s going to be a barrier there. There’s definitely going to be a barrier in the ability to get insurance approval because these require some specialization in terms of the office staff and nursing staff shepherding it through the approval process. A lot of primary care practices may not have that infrastructure built in. I haven’t seen a big uptake in my area with primary care physicians using respiratory biologics.

But what I have seen is a lot more willingness to use these biologics at the point where it’s determined that they’re necessary. Because previously, 5 or 6 years ago, there was this sense that you’d start 1 or 2 of your worst patients on this and see how things would go for them, if these made a big change. In the allergy and immunology space, I definitely think we’ve seen a lot of comfort, recognizing that once a patient is poorly controlled, we need to think about these biologics. We have a lot of comfort using them now. They’re very safe. They’re very effective.

The other group I’ve seen a lot of uptick in is with our pulmonary colleagues, who also see a lot of asthma. Before these newer biologic agents, they may not have been using omalizumab in their practices for a variety of reasons, but now they’re much more willing and comfortable using these. It’s the same idea, reserving it for not just the very worst of the worst or the steroid-dependent asthmatics but also starting to more routinely consider this. At my institution, Scripps Health, it’s been great. We have a lot of sharing patients. Patients may have some confusion about what might be the best biologic, so they consult with us and still have a lot of their care directed by pulmonary. Those are the trends. I’ll bet it’s different in different parts of the country. Dr Chase and Dr Siri, I’m curious if you’ve noticed anything or any trends in your own practices.

 Overall we’ve seen similar trends with primary care providers. There’s a better awareness among primary care providers, who know that patients are coming and asking about these medications. Some have been talking with family members or friends who may have exposure to them. Others have been seeing television commercials of individuals breathing better, and wondering how they can be in that same category. The uptake has been higher with pulmonary colleagues over time. I hope they’ve learned that everyone in allergy is very friendly. A call to inquire about whether this patient is a good candidate for a biologic is much more common than ever before.

 There’s increased recognition from allergists that we’re allergy, asthma, and immunology experts. We’ve seen a lot of good collaboration with our pulmonary colleagues as well as our primary care doctors. Primary care has so many challenges, such as limited time. It’s helpful that there has been an increased movement toward biologics. There’s more understanding and education into what’s considered uncontrolled, what we accept as a number of exacerbation rates and corticosteroid systemic burdens over time. It’s been really helpful.

Raffi Tachdjian, MD, MPH, FAAAAI, FACAAI:

 A couple of weeks ago, I had a patient come in on a follow-up with his wife and son. I thought, “They must be on their way to go shopping or to a restaurant.” It was the son who said, “Thank you for giving me my father back, because now I can play sports with him. He can breathe.” My patient was nodding; he’s a man of a few words. Those scenarios validate why we’re doing this and pushing the science to get better outcomes. Better outcomes, but not at the risk of worse adverse effects.

Dr Chase, earlier you described that give and take, the benefits and risks with the corticosteroids. With that in mind, what can be done to increase the availability of biologics in scenarios where patients need them and suffer from the deleterious effect?

That’s a great question. This is on all of us to educate our patients right off the bat. I love to tell patients, “Don’t worry.” I always have a couple of backup plans if we think they’re going toward the point of needing more assertive therapies in terms of biologics. That education is great. With settings like this, we all get to talk together, engage one another, learn from one another, and think more about how we can better educate our colleagues on the fact that these biologics exist. They’re there for us to use, and we wield them all the time. Let us be helpful to you if we can.

Access has always been an issue. For many individuals, access can be getting to a provider in an area that’s within a reasonable distance. We’ve seen some uptake with telemedicine with the pandemic, and that’s been lovely. But for an issue like asthma, we sometimes need to see patients in the office. However, all these biologics now, with the exception of reslizumab, can be self-administered. That’s huge. That’s what patients want: to take medication in the comfort of their own home, on their own time, knowing that there aren’t safety concerns about it.

With this group here, we’ve gotten very quickly comfortable with biologics being another step in the armamentarium we use to treat patients. We look at someone as they walk in the door and think, “I’ll bet they’re going to need a biologic at some point.” We’ve all done that. Now we have lots of years of safety and efficacy data. Hearing stories from patients validate that this was the right decision to make the right approach.

Finally, there’s the overall thinking about being part of the conversation. We need to let others know that this isn’t a field that’s stagnant. We’re getting new breakthroughs all the time. We need to encourage research further on asthma as a main issue for individuals in the United States and worldwide. There are even more to come. There are barriers, but there are lots of reasons to be excited about the future of asthma.

Experts discuss the use of biologic treatment in asthma by primary care physicians vs pulmonology specialists as well as overcoming barriers to biologic use through patient and physician education.

Trends in Biologic Treatment of Asthma

Raffi Tachdjian, MD, MPH, FAAAAI, FACAAI

Robert Snyder, MD, is board-certified in dermatology and internal medicine, currently with Riverchase Dermatology.

A group of 9 experts reflect on what they are looking forward to most in 2025 following the AAD annual meeting. 

Expert Perspectives: Dermatology's Top Story to Watch in 2025

Although nearly all medical professionals can point to a “flagship” meeting or annual conference for their specialty, few serve the same role as or measure up to what the 

American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting

A testament to the draw and magnitude of the AAD’s annual showcase, the 2025 annual meeting, which was held in Orlando, Florida, from March 07-11, 2025, had more than 20,000 registered attendees. In addition to being the field’s largest meeting, one of the unique aspects of the AAD annual meeting is its placement on the calendar. While many organizations opt for end of year or mid-year meetings, the AAD annual meeting typically occurs in Q1 and, for many, sets the tone for the remainder of the year.

With this in mind, the editorial team of HCPLive Dermatology included a simple question on the end of our interviews from the meeting with 9 leading subject matter experts in dermatology: “What is going to be the most important storyline to watch for dermatology for the rest of 2025?”

In the above video, we highlight the perspectives of these experts. Below, you can find a brief summary of the backgrounds and expertise of each individual included in this feature video.

, is a professor and vice chair for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at the Perelman School of Medicine. She also serves as president of the American Academy of Dermatology.

, is chairman at Innovaderm Research. He is also the principal investigator of the ICONIC-LEAD trial, which was presented at AAD 2025.

, is a dermatologist and internal medicine specialist with Riverchase Dermatology.

, is an associate professor of Dermatology for the USC Keck School of Medicine. She is the founding director of the USC Skin of Color and Pigmentary Disorders Program and also the president of the Skin of Color Society.

, is the owner of Medical Dermatology Specialists, chief of inpatient dermatology at BannerHealth, and the founder of US Dermatology Partners.

, is a dermatologist and the medical director at the SKiN Centre for Dermatology.

, is an associate professor in dermatology at the Yale School of Medicine.

, is the director of the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the co-chair of the American Academy of Dermatology Acne Guidelines Work Group.

, is vice chair of research in dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and director of the Mark Lebwohl Center for Neuroinflammation and Sensation.

Robert Snyder, MD

Skin of Color Savvy: The Art and Science of Treating Patients of Color

SOCS EP 1 Itch in Skin of Color Second Intro

Skin of Color Savvy: The Art and Science of Treating Patients of Color,

 the official podcast of the Skin of Color Society, produced by HCPLive. Hosted by Skin of Color Society (SOCS) leaders, this podcast delves into the latest research, clinical insights, and culturally intelligent and responsive care practices in dermatology. From groundbreaking studies to practice-changing insights, we’re here to empower healthcare providers with expert perspectives on treating patients with skin of color.

In this, the podcast’s inaugural episode, SOCS board members Andrew Alexis, MD, MPH, vice chair for Diversity and Inclusion for the Department of Dermatology and professor of Clinical Dermatology at Weill Cornell Medical College, and Shawn Kwatra, MD, associate professor of Dermatology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, explore the topic of Itch in Skin of Color.

Itch, or pruritus, in patients with skin of color presents unique challenges that are often overlooked in clinical practice. One significant issue is the lack of visible erythema, which can make it harder for clinicians to identify and assess the severity of the condition. During the conversation, Dr. Alexis emphasized that patients with darker skin tones often face delays in care due to these diagnostic challenges and cultural barriers that may prevent them from fully communicating the impact of their symptoms. He shared that targeted questions—such as asking whether itch disrupts sleep or daily focus—can be critical in uncovering the true burden of the condition.

Kwatra highlights the need for a more tailored approach to treatment, noting that conventional therapies may not always address the specific needs of patients with darker skin tones. Topical corticosteroids, antihistamines, and other standard treatments are often prescribed, but they may not fully resolve itch in certain cases, particularly when underlying conditions like atopic dermatitis or lichen planus are involved.

Alexis also shared his experiences with integrating newer therapeutic options, such as topical JAK inhibitors, which have shown promise in reducing itch and inflammation in this population. Together, the conversation underscored the importance of cultural competence, thorough patient history-taking, and exploring innovative therapies to address the unique challenges of itch in skin of color.

Relevant disclosures for Alexis include, Leo, Novartis, Menlo, Galderma, Pfizer, Sanofi-Regeneron, Dermavant, Unilever, Celgene, Beiersdorf, Valeant, L’Oreal, BMS, Menlo, Scientis, Bausch health , UCB, Foamix , Cassiopea, and Arcutis, among others. Relevant disclosures for Kwatra includeAbbvie, Amgen, Arcutis, Aslan Pharmaceuticals, Cara Therapeutics, Castle Biosciences, Celldex Therapeutics, Galderma, Incyte Corporation, Johnson & Johnson, Novartis, Leo, Regeneron, and Sanofi, among others.

In the inaugural episode of Skin of Color Savvy, Andrew Alexis, MD, MPH, and Shawn Kwatra, MD, discuss diagnosis and management of itch in skin of color. 

Skin of Color Savvy: Itch in Skin of Color, with Andrew Alexis, MD, MPH, and Shawn Kwatra, MD

Shawn Kwatra, MD

Shuai (Steve) Xu, MD, MSc, is a dermatologist, a physician-engineer, Ruth K. Freinkel MD professor at the Feinberg School of Medicine, and the CEO and co-founder of Sibel Health.

Artificial Intelligence in Dermatology: Emerging Insights and Diverging Perspectives

AI in Dermatology: Emerging Insights and Diverging Perspectives

Artificial intelligence (AI) technology may be transforming the field of 

, providing clinicians and patients with faster diagnoses, greater diagnostic accuracy, and expanded access to health care. The topic is rapidly becoming one of the most debated in medicine, driven by a heated clash between supporters and skeptics over whether it will truly benefit patients.

A plethora of recent studies have been published regarding new types of AI technology and their use in dermatology. In this 

 feature, 3 speakers were interviewed regarding their contributions to recent AI-related studies in dermatology as well as their more general impressions of the heightened interest in further implementing AI in medicine.

The feature included an interview with Harald Kittler, MD, a professor of dermatology for the Medical University of Vienna, whose international research team had evaluated a learning method in which the accuracy of AI results incorporated human decision-making criteria. The study, which demonstrated a 12% improvement in correct skin cancer diagnoses made by dermatologists, was published in Nature Medicine.

An interview was also conducted with Kailas Vodrahalli, a PhD student in electrical engineering at Stanford University. Vodrahilli touched upon his own team’s research, involving an evaluation of an AI decision support tool using a machine learning algorithm and determining whether the tool could improve the telemedicine-submitted image quality by providing real-time responses to patients. The study concluded that the AI decision support tool’s use, along with their machine learning algorithm, was linked to improvements in the quality of skin disease photographs.

This feature also included an interview with Shuai (Steve) Xu, MD, MSc, a dermatologist, physician engineer, Ruth K. Freinkel MD professor at the Feinberg School of Medicine, and CEO of Sibel Health. His research pointed to the efficacy of the use of haptic feedback on an 

, with occurrences of nocturnal scratching decreasing among adult patients suffering from mild atopic dermatitis.

Kittler, Xu, and Vodrahilli addressed their own findings and discuss the general discourse surrounding AI’s use in dermatology. Each expert’s unique insights, given their differing specialties and backgrounds, allow for an update on new AI research and any current progress AI technology has had in reshaping skin disease detection, clinical decision-making enhancement, and pushing the boundaries of dermatological care.

Check out the feature video posted above to discover more about the findings uncovered by these experts.

Kittler received nonfinancial support from Derma Medical Systems, Fotofinder and Heine, and speaker fees from Fotofinder. Vodrahalli reported receiving grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF) Graduate Research Fellowships Program during the conduct of the study and had a patent for Automated Clinical Image Quality Assessment pending for the work in this study. Xu reported grants from Maruho Co Ltd during the conduct of his study, serves on the advisory board for AbbVie outside the submitted work, and has a patent for WO2023183258 pending.

Barata C, Rotemberg V, Codella NCF, Tschandl P, Rinner C, Akay BN, Apalla Z, Argenziano G, Halpern A, Lallas A, Longo C, Malvehy J, Puig S, Rosendahl C, Soyer HP, Zalaudek I, Kittler H. A reinforcement learning model for AI-based decision support in skin cancer. Nat Med. 2023 Aug;29(8):1941-1946. doi: 10.1038/s41591-023-02475-5. Epub 2023 Jul 27. PMID: 37501017; PMCID: PMC10427421.

Vodrahalli K, Ko J, Chiou AS, Novoa R, Abid A, Phung M, Yekrang K, Petrone P, Zou J, Daneshjou R. Development and Clinical Evaluation of an Artificial Intelligence Support Tool for Improving Telemedicine Photo Quality. JAMA Dermatol. 2023 May 1;159(5):496-503. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2023.0091. PMID: 36920380; PMCID: PMC10018405.

Yang AF, Patel S, Chun KS, et al. Artificial Intelligence–Enabled Wearable Devices and Nocturnal Scratching in Mild Atopic Dermatitis. JAMA Dermatol. Published online February 05, 2025. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2024.5697.

In this feature, 3 experts highlight their own research on new technological advances and their views on the benefits and drawbacks of artificial intelligence in dermatology.

Shuai (Steve) Xu, MD, MSc,

It's my pleasure to present the third iteration of Qazi Corner for the 2024 year. In this installment, we highlight research from our fellows and from our team, as well as poignant topics in gastroenterology that we believe are very important and relevant for clinicians.

 is written by Rajat Garg, MD, who reviewed a retrospective cohort study looking at early versus late complications in patients who have liver transplantation and are sent to ERCP. It's a very poignant article looking at what the risk factors are and the complication rates in these patients who have an ERCP earlier versus later. What he came up with through this review of the coronary center at the Cleveland Clinic is that patients who have an earlier ERCP, ideally within 30 days of their liver transplantation, have a higher risk for bleeding compared to patients who have ERCP later than 30 days post-transplant, and without any change in technical success or clinical success for the procedure itself.

This provides a little bit of a pause as we're sort of rushing into our procedures and evaluating. Obviously, there are reasons why we sometimes have to do our procedures in a more timely fashion, but I think it does provide that situation where a patient may be able to wait for a delay prior to that procedure without necessarily changing your technical level of success or clinical success.

 is by David Long, DO, a current second-year GI fellow at Cleveland Clinic, who summarizes the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists in the context of endoscopic management and how we evaluate these new medications with their ubiquitous use and gaining popularity, as well as how we sort of try and utilize techniques that can minimize complications with these agents that are designed to delay gastric emptying, delay gastric utility, impair peristalsis, and actually potentially result in poor preps and higher risk for aspirations. I think he provides a very good summary of the data that is out there, but also the current updates and practice guidelines.

 is by Chiara Maruggi, MD, a graduated third-year GI fellow, currently in practice at Scripps in San Diego, and she provides her research on the diagnosis of seronegative celiac disease in patients with villous atrophy found on endoscopy. I think the bigger thing that we need to sort of realize is that in most of these situations where we look and we find patients who have villous atrophy on endoscopy, the more common things that we're often finding is the patient does have seronegative celiac disease. The blood testing can be negative, but they do have evidence suggesting that they have celiac disease, and the differential can be wide, potentially including things like HIV, CVID, Crohn's disease, and medication-induced. So I think the big sort of telltale sign is to keep the differential broad, always review whether it truly is celiac disease by implementing a gluten challenge, but really evaluate what we can do to address this sort of condition and really come with a good diagnosis or a diagnostic skill to create the best differential possible.

The third quarterly issue of 2024 reviews early versus late ERCP outcomes post-transplant, the impact of GLP-1RA use on endoscopic management, and the differential diagnosis of seronegative villous atrophy.

Authors