Hidden in Plain Sight — Reconsidering the Use of Race Correction in Clinical Algorithms (NEJM)

By Darshali A. Vyas, M.D.,  Leo G. Eisenstein, M.D.,  and David S. Jones, M.D., Ph.D., June 17, 2020, NEJM.

Physicians still lack consensus on the meaning of race. When the Journal took up the topic in 2003 with a debate about the role of race in medicine, one side argued that racial and ethnic categories reflected underlying population genetics and could be clinically useful.¹ Others held that any small benefit was outweighed by potential harms that arose from the long, rotten history of racism in medicine.² Weighing the two sides, the accompanying Perspective article concluded that though the concept of race was “fraught with sensitivities and fueled by past abuses and the potential for future abuses,” race-based medicine still had potential: “it seems unwise to abandon the practice of recording race when we have barely begun to understand the architecture of the human genome.”³

The next year, a randomized trial showed that a combination of hydralazine and isosorbide dinitrate reduced mortality due to heart failure among patients who identified themselves as black. The Food and Drug Administration granted a race-specific indication for that product, BiDil, in 2005.⁴ Even though BiDil’s ultimate commercial failure cast doubt on race-based medicine, it did not lay the approach to rest. Prominent geneticists have repeatedly called on physicians to take race seriously,^5,6 while distinguished social scientists vehemently contest these calls.^7,8

[Please click here to read more.]