Trends in sunscreen recommendation among US physicians.

IMPORTANCE: Sunscreen is an important part of sun protection to prevent skin cancer but may not be recommended as often as guidelines dictate. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate trends in sunscreen recommendation among physicians to determine whether they are following suggested patient-education guidelines regarding sun protection, and to assess data regarding physician sunscreen recommendations to determine the association with patient demographics, physician specialty, and physician diagnosis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey was queried to identify patient visits to nonfederal outpatient physician offices at US ambulatory care practices (January 1, 1989-December 26, 2010) during which sunscreen was recommended. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Frequency of sunscreen recommendation. RESULTS: According to the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, there were an estimated 18.30 billion patient visits nationwide. Physicians mentioned sunscreen at approximately 12.83 million visits (0.07%). Mention of sunscreen was reported by physicians at 0.9% of patient visits associated with a diagnosis of skin disease. Dermatologists recorded the mention of sunscreen the most (86.4% of all visits associated with sunscreen). However, dermatologists reported mentioning sunscreen at only 1.6% of all dermatology visits. Sunscreen was mentioned most frequently to white patients, particularly those in their eighth decade of life, and least frequently to children. Actinic keratosis was the most common diagnosis associated with sunscreen recommendation. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Despite encouragement to provide patient education regarding sunscreen use and sun-protective behaviors, the rate at which physicians are mentioning sunscreen at patient visits is quite low, even for patients with a history of skin cancer. The high incidence and morbidity of skin cancer can be greatly reduced with the implementation of sun-protective behaviors, which patients should be counseled about at outpatient visits.

A double-blind, randomized clinical trial of 20% alpha/poly hydroxy acid cream to reduce scaling of lesions associated with moderate, chronic plaque psoriasis.

BACKGROUND: Salicylic acid is a topical keratolytic agent used to reduce scaling and hyperkeratosis associated with psoriasis vulgaris. However, its use is limited due to potential systemic toxicity. Hydroxyacids also modulate keratinization and desquamation. Therefore, they may serve a beneficial role in the treatment of hyperkeratotic conditions. To date, there are no clinical studies in the literature regarding the efficacy of hydroxyacids for psoriasis treatment. PURPOSE: To evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of topical 20% alpha-hydroxy/polyhydroxy acid versus standard salicylic acid to reduce scaling in patients with moderate, chronic psoriasis. METHODS: Twenty-five subjects with moderate, chronic psoriasis were enrolled in a 2-week, double-blind, left-right, randomized, bilateral comparison clinical trial to compare the efficacy of 20% alpha-hydroxy/polyhydroxy acid emollient versus 6% salicylic acid cream and 24 were randomized/completed. Clinical evaluations to assess the severity of psoriasis and scaling were performed using a 6-point scale prior to treatment, as well as following 1 and 2 weeks of therapy. RESULTS: Twenty-four participants completed the study. Both 20% alpha-hydroxy/polyhydroxy acid emollient and 6% salicylic acid cream were efficacious in reducing scale of psoriatic lesions. The topical 20% alpha-hydroxy/polyhydroxyacid reduced scaling at a faster rate; however, following 2 weeks of treatment the efficacy of both products were relatively the same. CONCLUSION: 20% alpha-hydroxy/polyhydroxyacid is as efficacious as salicylic acid in regards to the de-scaling of psoriatic plaques. Additionally, 20% alpha-hydroxy/polyhydroxyacid cream may yield quicker results and less toxicity than salicylic acid.

Outcomes of inborn and transported extremely premature very-low-birthweight infants in Hawai'i.

BACKGROUND: Delivery of premature infants outside tertiary care centers is not always preventable. The aim of this study was to compare rates of survival and common morbidities in extremely premature babies transported to a level III facility versus those born at the level III center. METHODS: Retrospective chart review was performed on all neonates born at ≤ 28 weeks of gestation with birthweight ≤ 1500 g who were admitted to the Newborn Intensive Care Unit at Kapi'olani Medical Center for Women and Children (KMCWC) between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2005. Infants were divided into two groups, those born at KMCWC (Inborn) and those born at level I institutions and subsequently transported (Transport) to KMCWC. RESULTS: A total of 394 neonates met the study criteria; 349 were inborn while 45 were transported. Survival rates were identical for both groups. However, the Transport group survivors displayed a significantly longer mean length of stay and higher rate of severe retinopathy of prematurity than those in the Inborn group (P ≤ 0.01). CONCLUSION: Identical rates of survival in both groups suggest that community medical professionals are providing satisfactory care to stabilize critical neonates without reducing their chances of survival. However, increased length of stay and higher rate of retinopathy of prematurity in the Transport group suggest that differences in medical management during the first few hours of life may adversely affect outcomes.