Cardiologists' Perspectives on BiDil and the Use of Race in Drug Prescribing.

OBJECTIVES: We explored cardiologists' attitudes and prescribing patterns specific to the use of generic isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine hydrochloride, and the fixed-dose patented drug, BiDil. BACKGROUND: Since the Food and Drug Administration approved BiDil in 2005 with an indication for self-identified black patients, disagreement about the appropriateness of race-based drugs has intensified and led to calls for providers and researchers to abandon race-based delimitations. This paper reports empirical evidence of cardiologists' views on BiDil's race-based indication and their ongoing inertia with respect to the debate about BiDil. METHODS: We conducted a 2010 cross-sectional online survey of members of the Association of Black Cardiologists. RESULTS: Fifty-nine cardiologists responded to the survey. Most participants (62.7%) prescribed BiDil to their patients. More than 40% of respondents did not prescribe BiDil to any non-African Americans. When considering whether to prescribe BiDil, a patient's race determined by physician assessment was the third most important factor considered by participants. The majority of participants (72.7%) selected symptoms as the most important factor. Most participants (59.2%) perceived race as defining biologically distinct individuals. Respondents prescribed BiDil more often to African American patients than non-African American patients. However, they prescribed the generic components that makeup BiDil to African Americans and non-African American patients similarly. CONCLUSIONS: The survey provides useful findings that, when viewed within the context of ongoing debates about race-based medicine, show little progress toward appropriately utilizing BiDil to maximize health outcomes, yet, might inform the development of practical and effective guidelines concerning the use of race in medicine.

Personal DNA testing in college classrooms: perspectives of students and professors.

Discourse on the integration of personal genetics and genomics into classrooms is increasing; however, limited data have been collected on the perspectives of students and professors. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of undergraduate and graduate students as well as professors at two major universities to assess attitudes regarding the use of personal DNA testing and other personalized activities in college classrooms. Students indicated that they were more likely to enroll (60.2%) in a genetics course if it offered personal DNA testing; undergraduate students were more likely than graduate students to enroll if personal DNA testing was offered (p=0.029). Students who majored in the physical sciences were less likely to enroll than students in the biological or social sciences (p=0.019). Students also indicated that when course material is personalized, the course is more interesting (94.6%) and the material is easier to learn (87.3%). Professors agreed that adding a personalized element increases student interest, participation, and learning (86.0%, 82.6%, and 72.6%, respectively). The results of this study indicate that, overall, students and professors had a favorable view of the integration of personalized information, including personal DNA testing, into classroom activities, and students welcomed more opportunities to participate in personalized activities.