PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 14640777

Racial (ethnic) differences in skin properties: the objective data.

Abstract

Racial (ethnic) differences in skin properties may explain racial disparities seen in dermatologic disorders and provide insight into appropriate differences in the management of these disorders. However, racial differences in skin have been minimally investigated by objective methods and the data are often contradictory. Objective methods studied include transepidermal water loss (TEWL), water content (WC), corneocyte variability, blood vessel reactivity, elastic recovery/extensibility, pH gradient, lipid content, surface microflora, microscopic evaluation of mast cell granules, and confocal microscopy. The majority of the evidence (six out of eight studies) indicates that TEWL is greater in Black skin compared with White skin. TEWL measurements of Asian skin are inconclusive as they have been found to be equal to Black skin and greater than Caucasian skin, equal to Caucasian skin, and less than all other ethnic groups in different studies. Racial differences in WC, as measured by resistance, capacitance, conductance and impedance, are also inconclusive as the data are contradictory. While the evidence regarding corneocyte desquamation is minimal, one clinically provocative observation is that Blacks have a 2.5 times greater spontaneous desquamation rate compared with Caucasians and Asians, possibly accounting for an increased frequency of xerosis seen clinically in Blacks. With regards to blood vessel reactivity, studies can not be compared to each other because each uses different vasoactive substances. However, each study, except for one study comparing Hispanics and Whites, and another comparing Japanese and German women, reveal some degree of racial variation in blood vessel reactivity. It has been demonstrated that the pH of Black skin is less than White skin; however, the studies that have demonstrated this have done so under different skin conditions and on different anatomic sites. Racial differences in lipid content are inconclusive. Additionally, there is insufficient and conflicting evidence to make conclusions regarding racial differences in skin biomechanics and skin microflora. Microscopic evaluation reveals that Black skin contains larger mast cell granules, and differences in stuctural properties and enzymes of mast cells compared with White skin, possibly accounting for differences in pruritus experienced by the individuals of these racial groups. There exists substantial evidence to support that Black skin has a higher TEWL, variable blood vessel reactivity, decreased skin surface pH, and larger mast cell granules compared with White skin. Although some deductions have been made about Asian and Hispanic skin, further evaluation needs to be done. Differences in WC, corneocyte desquamation, elastic recovery/extensibility, lipid content and skin microflora, although statistically significant, are inconclusive.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Naissan O Wesley, Howard I Maibach. 2003. Racial (ethnic) differences in skin properties: the objective data.. https://doi.org/10.2165/00128071-200304120-00004

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

BiDil for heart failure in black patients: implications of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval.

In 2005, the combination of hydralazine hydrochloride and isosorbide dinitrate was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for treating heart failure in black patients. In departing from its long history of approving drugs for general clinical indications without regard to demographic classification, the FDA cited the need to address racial disparities in health as an important contributor to their decision. The authors argue that this decision, although perhaps well-intentioned, was based on flawed scientific interpretation of trial results that claimed differential drug response by race and ignored the considerable literature on the cause of racial disparities in health and health care. Because of its potential impact on future drug approvals, the FDA's decision is a setback in the scientific and policy discourse on medical therapeutics and race and specifically hinders the efforts aimed at eliminating health and health care disparities.

Black People↗

BiDil for heart failure in black patients: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration perspective.

Critics of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the fixed combination of hydralazine hydrochloride, 37.5 mg, and isosorbide dinitrate, 20 mg, for treating heart failure in black patients have suggested that data were insufficient to distinguish treatment effects in black and white people; that distinctions based on race, rather than pathophysiology, were scientifically unreasonable; and that a "race-based" approval could be a commercial ploy to avoid a more expensive and prolonged full evaluation of a drug. The criticisms acknowledge that data supporting the approval came from a well-designed clinical trial in which self-identified black patients with heart failure who took hydralazine hydrochloride-isosorbide dinitrate with standard therapy experienced a statistically significant 43% (95% CI, 11% to 63%) reduction in mortality compared with those who took only the standard therapy. The criticisms do not always recognize that the decision to conduct the trial in only black patients reflected careful analyses of 2 previous trials in racially mixed patient populations that compared hydralazine hydrochloride-isosorbide dinitrate with placebo or with enalapril. Both trials showed little or no overall effect of hydralazine hydrochloride-isosorbide dinitrate in the mostly white patient population but hinted at a substantial effect in subsets of black patients. Perhaps most critically, the criticisms do not appreciate the urgency of strong scientific evidence of a substantial survival benefit in black patients. A serious attempt to avoid race-based approval by mandating study of a mixed population to identify a possible white patient-responder subset, particularly without a plausible hypothesis as to what that subset might be, would have required years of work, many thousands of patients, and wholly unreasonable delay in approval of a treatment whose effectiveness had been well-documented in the group for which it was intended.

Black People↗