Search

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to understand the usability and acceptability of virtual reality (VR) among a racially and ethnically diverse group of patients who experience chronic pain.Materials and methodsUsing the Technology Acceptance Model theory, we conducted semistructured interviews and direct observation of VR use with English-speaking patients who experience chronic pain treated in a public healthcare system (n = 15), using a commercially available VR technology platform. Interviews included questions about current pain management strategies, technology use, experiences and opinions with VR, and motivators for future use.ResultsBefore the study, none of the 15 participants had heard about or used VR for pain management. Common motivators for VR use included a previous history of substance use and having exhausted many other options to manage their pain and curiosity. Most participants had a positive experience with VR and 47% found that the VR modules distracted them from their pain. When attempting the navigation-based usability tasks, most participants (73%-92%) were able to complete them independently.DiscussionVR is a usable tool for diverse patients with chronic pain. Our findings suggest that the usability of VR is not a barrier and perhaps a focus on improving the accessibility of VR in safety-net settings is needed to reduce disparities in health technology use.ConclusionsThe usability and acceptability of VR are rarely studied in diverse patient populations. We found that participants had a positive experience using VR, showed interest in future use, and would recommend VR to family and friends.

BackgroundAsthma is a heterogeneous disease. Clinical blood parameters differ by race/ethnicity and are used to distinguish asthma subtypes and inform therapies. Differences in subtypes may explain population-specific trends in asthma outcomes. However, these differences in racial/ethnic minority pediatric populations are unclear.ObjectiveWe investigated the association of blood parameters and asthma subtypes with asthma outcomes and examined population-specific eligibility for biologic therapies in minority pediatric populations.MethodsUsing data from 2 asthma case-control studies of pediatric minority populations, we performed case-control (N = 3738) and case-only (N = 2743) logistic regressions to quantify the association of blood parameters and asthma subtypes with asthma outcomes. Heterogeneity of these associations was tested using an interaction term between race/ethnicity and each exposure. Differences in therapeutic eligibility were investigated using chi-square tests.ResultsRace/ethnicity modified the association between total IgE and asthma exacerbations. Elevated IgE level was associated with worse asthma outcomes in Puerto Ricans. Allergic asthma was associated with worse outcomes in Mexican Americans, whereas eosinophilic asthma was associated with worse outcomes in Puerto Ricans. A lower proportion of Puerto Ricans met dosing criteria for allergic asthma-directed biologic therapy than other groups. A higher proportion of Puerto Ricans qualified for eosinophilic asthma-directed biologic therapy than African Americans.ConclusionsWe found population-specific associations between blood parameters and asthma subtypes with asthma outcomes. Our findings suggest that eligibility for asthma biologic therapies differs across pediatric racial/ethnic populations. These findings call for more studies in diverse populations for equitable treatment of minority patients with asthma.

The article discusses efforts to expand education on skin lightening products. Topics include how skin lightening products are marketed in the U.S., impact of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act on over-the-counter (OTC) skin lightening products, and factors that drive the consumer motivation to use skin lightening products.

Although the population in the United States is diverse, there are disparities in healthcare outcomes in some populations, for example, based on characteristics such as race, ethnicity, sex, gender, age, socioeconomic status, and geographic location. Despite disproportionate healthcare outcomes, certain populations are frequently under‐represented in clinical trials intended to support applications requesting US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval to market a drug or biologic. Additionally, safety and efficacy of therapeutic products may vary based on intrinsic (e.g., sex, age, race, and ethnicity) and/or extrinsic (e.g., drug interactions and medical practice) factors. Enrolling diverse populations in clinical trials can aid in addressing disparities and better inform the use of medical products in all patients who will use them upon approval. Herein, we outline a few initiatives and activities, such as policy development, regulatory review, regulatory research, and stakeholder engagement, that the FDA has undertaken to promote diversity in clinical trials, to support submission of such information in marketing applications for subgroup analyses, and to communicate information to the public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What is known and objective: The discussion about health equity in the United States frequently involves concerns over racial and ethnic minority under‐representation in clinical trials and particularly in trials conducted in support of product approvals. The FDA has long worked to encourage diverse participation in clinical trials and through its Drug Trials Snapshots (DTS) program, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has moved to make trial demographic data more accessible and transparent. We conducted a demographic study of U.S. participants in clinical trials for FDA‐approved new drugs (new molecular entities [NMEs], and original Biologics License Applications [BLAs]) from 2015 to 2019, as reported in DTS database with a purpose of understanding the extent to which U.S.‐based trials used to support product approvals represent the racial and ethnic diversity of the U.S. population by therapeutic area. Methods: Participant‐level trial data were collected by accessing the FDA electronic common technical document (eCTD), for the applications used to publish each Snapshot. The therapeutic area (TA) for each drug was determined by review division assignment. The demographic data were analysed and compared to U.S. census data. Results and discussion: We examined 102,596 U.S. participants in trials of new drugs that were approved and presented in Drug Trials Snapshots between 2015 and 2019. White participation ranged from 51% in psychiatric trials to 90% in cardiovascular (CV) trials; Black or African American participation ranged from 5% in medical imaging to 45% in psychiatric trials; Asian participation ranged from 0.75% in CV to 4% in dermatologic trials; and Hispanic or Latino participation ranged from 1% in medical imaging to 22% in infectious diseases and gastroenterology trials. What is new and conclusion: Our data showed variable representation of racial and ethnic minorities across therapeutic areas at the U.S. sites. Blacks or African Americans were represented at or above U.S. census estimates across most therapeutic areas, while Asians and American Indian or Alaska Natives were consistently underrepresented. Hispanic or Latino participation across most therapeutic areas was below U.S. census estimates, however, more variable, and a sizable proportion of data was missing. The next step is a comparison of trial participation based on disease prevalence and epidemiology, which is a more accurate assessment of trial diversity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]