RESUMEN
Persons with HIV-associated Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) experience three co-existing stigmatizing health conditions: skin disease, HIV, and cancer, which contribute to a complex experience of stigmatization and to delays in diagnosis and treatment. Despite the importance of stigma among these patients, there are few proven stigma-reduction strategies for HIV-associated malignancies. Using qualitative methods, we explore how people with HIV-associated KS in western Kenya between August 2022 and 2023 describe changes in their stigma experience after participation in a multicomponent navigation strategy, which included 1) physical navigation and care coordination, 2) video-based education with motivational survivor stories, 3) travel stipend, 4) health insurance enrollment assistance, 5) health insurance stipend, and 6) peer mentorship. A purposive sample of persons at different stages of chemotherapy treatment were invited to participate. Participants described how a multicomponent navigation strategy contributed to increased knowledge and awareness, a sense of belonging, hope to survive, encouragement, and social support, which served as stigma mitigators, likely counteracting the major drivers of intersectional stigma in HIV-associated KS.
Asunto(s)
Infecciones por VIH , Investigación Cualitativa , Sarcoma de Kaposi , Estigma Social , Humanos , Sarcoma de Kaposi/psicología , Sarcoma de Kaposi/terapia , Sarcoma de Kaposi/etiología , Sarcoma de Kaposi/epidemiología , Infecciones por VIH/psicología , Infecciones por VIH/complicaciones , Kenia/epidemiología , Masculino , Femenino , Adulto , Persona de Mediana Edad , Navegación de PacientesRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Acne vulgaris commonly affects adults, adolescents, and preadolescents aged 9 years or older. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to provide evidence-based recommendations for the management of acne. METHODS: A work group conducted a systematic review and applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach for assessing the certainty of evidence and formulating and grading recommendations. RESULTS: This guideline presents 18 evidence-based recommendations and 5 good practice statements. Strong recommendations are made for benzoyl peroxide, topical retinoids, topical antibiotics, and oral doxycycline. Oral isotretinoin is strongly recommended for acne that is severe, causing psychosocial burden or scarring, or failing standard oral or topical therapy. Conditional recommendations are made for topical clascoterone, salicylic acid, and azelaic acid, as well as for oral minocycline, sarecycline, combined oral contraceptive pills, and spironolactone. Combining topical therapies with multiple mechanisms of action, limiting systemic antibiotic use, combining systemic antibiotics with topical therapies, and adding intralesional corticosteroid injections for larger acne lesions are recommended as good practice statements. LIMITATIONS: Analysis is based on the best available evidence at the time of the systematic review. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations for the management of acne vulgaris.
Asunto(s)
Acné Vulgar , Antibacterianos , Peróxido de Benzoílo , Fármacos Dermatológicos , Ácidos Dicarboxílicos , Doxiciclina , Isotretinoína , Ácido Salicílico , Espironolactona , Humanos , Acné Vulgar/tratamiento farmacológico , Isotretinoína/administración & dosificación , Isotretinoína/uso terapéutico , Antibacterianos/administración & dosificación , Antibacterianos/uso terapéutico , Fármacos Dermatológicos/administración & dosificación , Fármacos Dermatológicos/uso terapéutico , Peróxido de Benzoílo/administración & dosificación , Peróxido de Benzoílo/uso terapéutico , Ácidos Dicarboxílicos/administración & dosificación , Ácidos Dicarboxílicos/uso terapéutico , Espironolactona/administración & dosificación , Espironolactona/uso terapéutico , Doxiciclina/administración & dosificación , Doxiciclina/uso terapéutico , Ácido Salicílico/administración & dosificación , Ácido Salicílico/uso terapéutico , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia/normas , Administración Oral , Retinoides/administración & dosificación , Retinoides/uso terapéutico , Tetraciclinas/administración & dosificación , Tetraciclinas/uso terapéutico , Adolescente , Minociclina/administración & dosificación , Minociclina/uso terapéutico , Niño , Administración Cutánea , Anticonceptivos Orales Combinados/administración & dosificación , Anticonceptivos Orales Combinados/uso terapéutico , Quimioterapia Combinada , Femenino , Corticoesteroides/administración & dosificación , Corticoesteroides/uso terapéutico , Inyecciones Intralesiones , Adulto , Cortodoxona/análogos & derivados , PropionatosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Primary and booster vaccinations are critical for mitigating COVID-19 transmission, morbidity, and mortality. Future booster vaccine campaigns rely on an increased understanding of vaccine hesitancy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate self-reported allergic and skin vaccine reactions as factors potentially associated with vaccine hesitancy in a nationwide vaccine allergy registry. METHODS: Responses to survey questions concerning COVID-19 vaccine perceptions, coded from free text by 2 independent reviewers. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine the association between changed negative perception and respondent demographics, vaccination history, and reaction characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 993 individuals (median of 46 years [IQR, 36-59], 88% female, 82% White) self-reported reactions to COVID-19 vaccination. Reactions included the following: delayed large local skin reaction (40%), hives/urticaria (32%), immediate large local skin reaction (3%), swelling (3%), anaphylaxis (2%), and other or unspecified (20%). Most respondents were initially unconcerned about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines (56%). After reactions, 401 of 993 (40%) report negative change in perception of vaccination, with more than half of these respondents (n = 211, 53%) citing their reasoning as a negative experience with adverse effects. Of 102 individuals asked about future vaccination, 79 (77%) indicated that they were unlikely or very unlikely to receive future COVID-19 vaccinations. Increased negative perception after reaction was associated with younger age, later COVID-19 vaccination dose number, and reaction type. CONCLUSION: Our findings reveal that an individual's experience with allergic or cutaneous adverse effects after COVID-19 vaccination affects attitudes and decision-making regarding future vaccination, even in initially non-hesitant individuals. Further investigation of secondary vaccine hesitancy is necessary for adapting public health messaging to this important population.
Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Vacilación a la Vacunación , Humanos , Femenino , Masculino , Vacunas contra la COVID-19/efectos adversos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Adulto , Vacilación a la Vacunación/psicología , COVID-19/prevención & control , COVID-19/psicología , SARS-CoV-2/inmunología , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Inmunización Secundaria/efectos adversos , Vacunación/efectos adversos , Vacunación/psicología , Autoinforme , Hipersensibilidad/psicologíaRESUMEN
While the majority of American Academy of Dermatology members have some broad awareness of human trafficking, most are not aware of it in their communities or of the skin signs that could prompt identification of those being exploited, and have requested educational resources to assist patients affected by trafficking. The American Academy of Dermatology Ad Hoc Task Force on Dermatologic Resources for the Intervention and Prevention of Human Trafficking has been working to develop relevant resources, including an online toolkit on the American Academy of Dermatology website: https://www.aad.org/member/clinical-quality/clinical-care/human-trafficking.
Asunto(s)
Dermatología , Trata de Personas , Humanos , Estados Unidos , Comités Consultivos , Academias e InstitutosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In the 2022 mpox (monkeypox) outbreak, 79,000 global cases have been reported. Yet, limited dermatologic data have been published regarding lesion morphology and progression. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to characterize skin lesion morphology, symptomatology, and outcomes of mpox infection over time. METHODS: The American Academy of Dermatology/International League of Dermatological Societies Dermatology COVID-19, Mpox, and Emerging Infections Registry captured deidentified patient cases of mpox entered by health care professionals. RESULTS: From August 4 to November 13, 2022, 101 cases from 13 countries were entered, primarily by dermatologists (92%). Thirty-nine percent had fewer than 5 lesions. In 54% of cases, skin lesions were the first sign of infection. In the first 1-5 days of infection, papules (36%), vesicles (17%), and pustules (20%) predominated. By days 6-10, pustules (36%) were most common, followed by erosions/ulcers (27%) and crusts/scabs (24%). Crusts/scabs were the predominant morphology after day 11. Ten cases of morbilliform rash were reported. Scarring occurred in 13% of the cases. LIMITATIONS: Registry-reported data cannot address incidence. There is a potential reporting bias from the predilection to report cases with greater clinical severity. DISCUSSION: These findings highlight differences in skin findings compared to historical outbreaks, notably the presence of skin lesions prior to systemic symptoms and low overall lesion counts. Scarring emerged as a major possible sequela.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Mpox , Enfermedades de la Piel , Humanos , Cicatriz , COVID-19/epidemiología , Brotes de Enfermedades , Vesícula , Progresión de la EnfermedadRESUMEN
Purpose of Review: This review aims to evaluate the spectrum of cutaneous reactions after both SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination while simultaneously understanding the evolution of the field of dermatology in the face of an ongoing pandemic. Recent Findings: The most commonly reported cutaneous reactions after COVID-19 infection in the literature to date include morbilliform or maculopapular rashes, chilblains, and urticaria. The incidence of cutaneous reactions after COVID-19 vaccination was 9% in larger cohort studies and more commonly occurred after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines than adenovirus vector vaccines. The most frequently reported cutaneous reactions after COVID-19 vaccines were delayed large local reactions, local injection site reactions, urticarial eruptions, and morbilliform eruptions. Summary: With the ongoing pandemic, and continued development of new COVID-19 variants and vaccines, the landscape of cutaneous reactions continues to rapidly evolve. Dermatologists have an important role in evaluating skin manifestations of the virus, as well as discussion and promoting COVID-19 vaccination for their patients.
RESUMEN
The World Health Organization declared the global monkeypox outbreak a public health emergency of international concern in July 2022. In response, the American Academy of Dermatology and International League of Dermatological Societies expanded the existing COVID-19 Dermatology Registry to become the "AAD/ILDS Dermatology COVID-19, Monkeypox, and Emerging Infections Registry." The goal of the registry is to rapidly collate cases of monkeypox and other emerging infections and enable prompt dissemination of findings to front-line healthcare workers and other members of the medical community. The registry is now accepting reports of monkeypox cases and cutaneous reactions to monkeypox/smallpox vaccines. The success of this collaborative effort will depend on active case entry by the global dermatology community.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Dermatología , Mpox , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiología , Sociedades Médicas , Sistema de RegistrosRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The experience of stigma can be multifaceted for people with HIV and cancer. Kaposi's sarcoma (KS), one of the most common HIV-associated cancers in sub-Saharan Africa, often presents with visible skin lesions that may put people at risk for stigmatization. In this way, HIV-associated KS is unique, as people with KS can experience stigma associated with HIV, cancer, and skin disease simultaneously. The aim of this study is to characterize the intersectionality of HIV-related, cancer-related and skin disease-related stigma in people living with HIV and KS. METHODS: We used a convergent mixed-methods approach nested within a longitudinal study of people with HIV-associated KS in western Kenya. Between February 2019 and December 2020, we collected quantitative surveys among all participants and conducted semi-structured interviews among a purposive sample of participants. Quantitative surveys were adapted from the abridged Berger HIV Stigma Scale to assess overall stigma, HIV-related stigma, cancer-related stigma, and skin disease-related stigma. Qualitative data were coded using stigma constructs from the Health Stigma and Discrimination Framework. RESULTS: In 88 semi-structured interviews, stigma was a major barrier to KS diagnosis and treatment among people with HIV-associated KS. Participant's stories of stigma were dominated by HIV-related stigma, more than cancer-related or skin disease-related stigma. However, quantitative stigma scores among the 117 participants were similar for HIV-related (Median: 28.00; IQR: 28.0, 34.0), cancer-related (Median: 28.0; IQR: 28.0, 34.8), and skin disease-related stigma (Median: 28.0; IQR: 27.0, 34.0). In semi-structured interviews, cancer-related and skin disease-related stigma were more subtle contributors; cancer-related stigma was linked to fatalism and skin-related stigma was linked to visible disease. Participants reported resolution of skin lesions contributed to lessening stigma over time; there was a significant decline in quantitative scores of overall stigma in time since KS diagnosis (adjusted ß = -0.15, p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the role mixed-method approaches can play in better understanding stigma in people living with both HIV and cancer. While HIV-related stigma may dominate perceptions of stigma among people with KS in Kenya, intersectional experiences of stigma may be subtle, and quantitative evaluation alone may be insufficient to understand intersectional stigma in certain contexts.