The utility of artificial intelligence platforms for patient-generated questions in Mohs micrographic surgery: a multi-national, blinded expert panel evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs) transform how patients inform themselves. LLMs offer potential as educational tools, but their quality depends upon the information generated. Current literature examining AI as an informational tool in dermatology has been limited in evaluating AI's multifaceted roles and diversity of opinions. Here, we evaluate LLMs as a patient-educational tool for Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) in and out of the clinic utilizing an international expert panel. METHODS: The most common patient MMS questions were extracted from Google and transposed into two LLMs and Google's search engine. 15 MMS surgeons evaluated the generated responses, examining their appropriateness as a patient-facing informational platform, sufficiency of response in a clinical environment, and accuracy of content generated. Validated scales were employed to assess the comprehensibility of each response. RESULTS: The majority of reviewers deemed all LLM responses appropriate. 75% of responses were rated as mostly accurate or higher. ChatGPT had the highest mean accuracy. The majority of the panel deemed 33% of responses sufficient for clinical practice. The mean comprehensibility scores for all platforms indicated a required 10th-grade reading level. CONCLUSIONS: LLM-generated responses were rated as appropriate patient informational sources and mostly accurate in their content. However, these platforms may not provide sufficient information to function in a clinical environment, and complex comprehensibility may represent a barrier to utilization. As the popularity of these platforms increases, it is important for dermatologists to be aware of these limitations.

Political Activism and the Dermatologist.

The practice of medicine is governed by legislation and regulation at the state and national level. It is crucial, therefore, that dermatologists become and remain involved in the process to advocate for their patients, their practices, and the specialty itself. Maintaining a relationship with one's state and federal senators and representatives is critical for physicians to have a voice in the shaping of health care policy. Local, state, and national medical and specialty societies are a tremendous resource for physicians to remain abreast of policies affecting the practice of medicine.

A dermatologic assessment of 101 mpox (monkeypox) cases from 13 countries during the 2022 outbreak: Skin lesion morphology, clinical course, and scarring.

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.

Mohs Micrographic Surgery.

Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is widely accepted as the gold standard for skin cancer cure, and properly trained surgeons who carry out this procedure are experts in the science and management of skin cancer. There are many potential pitfalls and challenges that a surgeon may encounter while carrying out MMS, and these can increase the likelihood of tumor recurrence and increased patient morbidity. With precise surgical technique, careful tissue handling, and laboratory processes that safeguard against errors, this procedure can provide excellent cure rates for most skin cancers, including melanoma, while maximizing tissue conservation in a low-cost outpatient clinical setting.

The American Academy of Dermatology and International League of Dermatological Societies Monkeypox Registry: Expanding the COVID-19 registry to emerging infections.

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.

Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Laser-Assisted Drug Delivery.

Importance: Laser-assisted drug delivery (LADD) is used for various medical and cosmetic applications. However, there is insufficient evidence-based guidance to assist clinicians performing LADD. Objective: To develop recommendations for the safe and effective use of LADD. Evidence Review: A systematic literature review of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and MEDLINE was conducted in December 2019 to identify publications reporting research on LADD. A multidisciplinary panel was convened to draft recommendations informed by the systematic review; they were refined through 2 rounds of Delphi survey, 2 consensus meetings, and iterative review by all panelists until unanimous consensus was achieved. Findings: Of the 48 published studies of ablative fractional LADD that met inclusion criteria, 4 were cosmetic studies; 21, oncologic; and 23, medical (not cosmetic/oncologic), and 6 publications of nonablative fractional LADD were included at the request of the expert panel, producing a total of 54 studies. Thirty-four studies (63.0%) were deemed to have low risk of bias, 17 studies (31.5%) had moderate risk, and 3 (5.5%) had serious risk. The key findings that informed the guidelines developed by the expert panel were as follows: LADD is safe in adults and adolescents (≥12 years) with all Fitzpatrick skin types and in patients with immunosuppression; it is an effective treatment for actinic keratosis, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in situ, actinic cheilitis, hypertrophic scars, and keloids; it is useful for epidermal and dermal analgesia; drug delivery may be increased through the application of heat, pressure, or occlusion, or by using an aqueous drug solution; laser settings should be selected to ensure that channel diameter is greater than the delivered molecule; antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended, except with impaired wound healing; antiviral prophylaxis is recommended when treating the face and genitalia; and antifungal prophylaxis is not recommended. The guideline's 15 recommendations address 5 areas of LADD use: (I) indications and contraindications; (II) parameters to report; (III) optimization of drug delivery; (IV) safety considerations; and (V) prophylaxis for bacterial, viral, and fungal infections. Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review and Delphi consensus approach culminated in an evidence-based clinical practice guideline for safe and effective use of LADD in a variety of applications. Future research will further improve our understanding of this novel treatment technique.

Clinical and pathologic correlation of cutaneous COVID-19 vaccine reactions including V-REPP: A registry-based study.

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous reactions after COVID-19 vaccination have been commonly reported; however, histopathologic features and clinical correlations have not been well characterized. METHODS: We evaluated for a history of skin biopsy all reports of reactions associated with COVID-19 vaccination identified in an international registry. When histopathology reports were available, we categorized them by reaction patterns. RESULTS: Of 803 vaccine reactions reported, 58 (7%) cases had biopsy reports available for review. The most common histopathologic reaction pattern was spongiotic dermatitis, which clinically ranged from robust papules with overlying crust, to pityriasis rosea-like eruptions, to pink papules with fine scale. We propose the acronym "V-REPP" (vaccine-related eruption of papules and plaques) for this spectrum. Other clinical patterns included bullous pemphigoid-like (n = 12), dermal hypersensitivity (n = 4), herpes zoster (n = 4), lichen planus-like (n = 4), pernio (n = 3), urticarial (n = 2), neutrophilic dermatosis (n = 2), leukocytoclastic vasculitis (n = 2), morbilliform (n = 2), delayed large local reactions (n = 2), erythromelalgia (n = 1), and other (n = 5). LIMITATIONS: Cases in which histopathology was available represented a minority of registry entries. Analysis of registry data cannot measure incidence. CONCLUSION: Clinical and histopathologic correlation allowed for categorization of cutaneous reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine. We propose defining a subset of vaccine-related eruption of papules and plaques, as well as 12 other patterns, following COVID-19 vaccination.

Learning from disease registries during a pandemic: Moving toward an international federation of patient registries.

High-quality dermatology patient registries often require considerable time to develop and produce meaningful data. Development time is influenced by registry complexity and regulatory hurdles that vary significantly nationally and institutionally. The rapid emergence of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic has challenged health services in an unprecedented manner. Mobilization of the dermatology community in response has included rapid development and deployment of multiple, partially harmonized, international patient registries, reinventing established patient registry timelines. Partnership with patient organizations has demonstrated the critical nature of inclusive patient involvement. This global effort has demonstrated the value, capacity, and necessity for the dermatology community to adopt a more cohesive approach to patient registry development and data sharing that can lead to myriad benefits. These include improved utilization of limited resources, increased data interoperability, improved ability to rapidly collect meaningful data, and shortened response times to generate real-world evidence. We call on the global dermatology community to support the development of an international federation of patient registries to consolidate and operationalize the lessons learned during this pandemic. This will provide an enduring means of applying this knowledge to the maintenance and development of sustainable, coherent, and impactful patient registries of benefit now and in the future.

Dermatology COVID-19 Registries: Updates and Future Directions.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, rapid, real-world evidence is essential for the development of knowledge and subsequent public health response. In dermatology, provider-facing and patient-facing registries focused on COVID-19 have been important sources of research and new information aimed at guiding optimal patient care. The 7 dermatology registries included in this update now include more than 8000 case reports sourced from physicians and patients from countries all over the world.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Dermatology Practice Changes.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on dermatology practice cannot be overstated. At its peak, the pandemic resulted in the temporary closure of ambulatory sites as resources were reallocated towards pandemic response efforts. Many outpatient clinics have since reopened and are beginning to experience a semblance of pre-pandemic routine, albeit with restrictions in place. We provide an overview of how COVID-19 has affected dermatology practice globally beginning with the rise of teledermatology. A summary of expert recommendations that shape the "new normal" in various domains of dermatology practice, namely, dermatology consultation, procedural dermatology, and phototherapy, is also provided.

Cutaneous reactions reported after Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination: A registry-based study of 414 cases.

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous reactions after messenger RNA (mRNA)-based COVID-19 vaccines have been reported but are not well characterized. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the morphology and timing of cutaneous reactions after mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. METHODS: A provider-facing registry-based study collected cases of cutaneous manifestations after COVID-19 vaccination. RESULTS: From December 2020 to February 2021, we recorded 414 cutaneous reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Moderna (83%) and Pfizer (17%). Delayed large local reactions were most common, followed by local injection site reactions, urticarial eruptions, and morbilliform eruptions. Forty-three percent of patients with first-dose reactions experienced second-dose recurrence. Additional less common reactions included pernio/chilblains, cosmetic filler reactions, zoster, herpes simplex flares, and pityriasis rosea-like reactions. LIMITATIONS: Registry analysis does not measure incidence. Morphologic misclassification is possible. CONCLUSIONS: We report a spectrum of cutaneous reactions after mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. We observed some dermatologic reactions to Moderna and Pfizer vaccines that mimicked SARS-CoV-2 infection itself, such as pernio/chilblains. Most patients with first-dose reactions did not have a second-dose reaction and serious adverse events did not develop in any of the patients in the registry after the first or second dose. Our data support that cutaneous reactions to COVID-19 vaccination are generally minor and self-limited, and should not discourage vaccination.