Low incidence of BRAF and NRAS mutations in a population with a high incidence of melanoma.

Reported rates of BRAF mutation in Irish cutaneous melanoma cohorts are lower than the reported international data. We aimed to assess the mutational status of a cohort of primary cutaneous melanomas and to correlate it with clinical follow-up data.A total of 92 cases of primary cutaneous melanoma diagnosed at a single institution in 2012 were analyzed. Regions containing common mutations in the BRAF, NRAS, KIT, and KRAS genes were investigated by PCR amplification followed by Sanger sequencing. Demographic details, tumor characteristics, and 10-year outcome data were also obtained.Ten cases with BRAF V600E mutations (11.6%) and five (5.49%) NRAS mutations (4 at Q61R, 1 at Q61K) were detected. No statistically significant differences were noted between groups for age, gender, depth of invasion, nodal status, or recurrence status (p ≥ 0.05).These findings suggest that the Irish population has a markedly lower incidence of BRAF and NRAS mutations in melanoma than those reported in other cohorts.

Methods for Identifying Culprit Drugs in Cutaneous Drug Eruptions: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Cutaneous drug eruptions are a significant source of morbidity, mortality, and cost to the healthcare system. Identifying the culprit drug is essential; however, despite numerous methods being published, there are no consensus guidelines. OBJECTIVES: Conduct a scoping review to identify all published methods of culprit drug identification for cutaneous drug eruptions, compare the methods, and generate hypotheses for future causality assessment studies. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Peer-reviewed publications involving culprit drug identification methods. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. CHARTING METHODS: Registered PRISMA-ScR format protocol on Open Science Forum. RESULTS: In total, 109 studies and 26 reviews were included comprising 656,635 adverse drug events, most of which were cutaneous. There were 54 methods of culprit drug identification published, categorized as algorithms, probabilistic approaches, and expert judgment. Algorithms had higher sensitivity and positive predictive value, but lower specificity and negative predictive value. Probabilistic approaches had lower sensitivity and positive predictive value, but higher specificity and negative predictive value. Expert judgment was subjective, less reproducible, but the most frequently used to validate other methods. Studies suggest that greater accuracy may be achieved by specifically assessing cutaneous drug eruptions and using combinations of causality assessment categories. CONCLUSIONS: Culprit drug identification for adverse drug reactions remains a challenge. Many methods have been published, but there are no consensus guidelines. Using causality assessment methods specifically for cutaneous drug eruptions and combining aspects of the different causality assessment categories may improve efficacy. Further studies are needed to validate this hypothesis.

An evidence-based guide to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination of patients on immunotherapies in dermatology.

Immune-mediated diseases and immunotherapeutics can negatively affect normal immune functioning and, consequently, vaccine safety and response. The COVID-19 pandemic has incited research aimed at developing a novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine. As SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are developed and made available, the assessment of anticipated safety and efficacy in patients with immune-mediated dermatologic diseases and requiring immunosuppressive and/or immunomodulatory therapy is particularly important. A review of the literature was conducted by a multidisciplinary committee to provide guidance on the safety and efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for dermatologists and other clinicians when prescribing immunotherapeutics. The vaccine platforms being used to develop SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are expected to be safe and potentially effective for dermatology patients on immunotherapeutics. Current guidelines for the vaccination of an immunocompromised host remain appropriate when considering future administration of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines.

Contact Dermatitis to Personal Sporting Equipment in Youth.

BACKGROUND: Contact dermatitis to personal sporting equipment in youth is poorly studied. OBJECTIVE: To review the results of patch testing 6 youth to their sporting equipment in a dermatology general private practice from 2006 to 2011. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 6 youth aged 11 to 14 who were evaluated for chronic and persistent dermatitis occurring in relation to sports equipment was conducted. All patients were subjected to epicutaneous (patch) testing, which included some or all of the following: North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACGD) series, textile series, rubber series, corticosteroid series, and raw material from the patients' own personal equipment. RESULTS: All cases had 1 or more positive patch test reactions to an allergen within the aforementioned series, and 3 subjects tested positive to their personal equipment in raw form. CONCLUSIONS: Allergic contact dermatitis, not irritant, was deemed the relevant cause of chronic dermatitis in 4 of the 6 patients due to positive reactions to epicutaneous tests and/or personal equipment. The utility of testing to patients' own sporting equipment was shown to be of additional value and should be considered when patch testing for contact allergy to sporting equipment.

Psychosocial needs assessment post kidney transplant: Feasibility of a post-transplant specific support group.

This project assessed unmet psychosocial needs of kidney transplant recipients and the feasibility of a support group located at an urban Canadian hospital to meet those needs. A survey assessed transplant recipient concerns about psychosocial issues related to transplantation, interest in a support group, desired group composition, facilitation, leadership, barriers and alternative forms of support. Most respondents were more than two years since transplant and were more concerned about medical complications, returning to normalcy, and had a greater desire to talk to other transplant recipients. Forty per cent of respondents indicated they would be interested in a support group. However, 60% indicated that a support group hosted in the hospital setting would be a deterrent to attending, citing time and transportation as the greatest barriers. More research is needed to assess the feasibility of post-kidney transplant support groups closer to recipients' homes and the feasibility of alternative forms of support.