Vaccination recommendations for adults receiving biologics and oral therapies for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: Delphi consensus from the medical board of the National Psoriasis Foundation.

BACKGROUND: For psoriatic patients who need to receive nonlive or live vaccines, evidence-based recommendations are needed regarding whether to pause or continue systemic therapies for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate literature regarding vaccine efficacy and safety and to generate consensus-based recommendations for adults receiving systemic therapies for psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis receiving nonlive or live vaccines. METHODS: Using a modified Delphi process, 22 consensus statements were developed by the National Psoriasis Foundation Medical Board and COVID-19 Task Force, and infectious disease experts. RESULTS: Key recommendations include continuing most oral and biologic therapies without modification for patients receiving nonlive vaccines; consider interruption of methotrexate for nonlive vaccines. For patients receiving live vaccines, discontinue most oral and biologic medications before and after administration of live vaccine. Specific recommendations include discontinuing most biologic therapies, except for abatacept, for 2-3 half-lives before live vaccine administration and deferring next dose 2-4 weeks after live vaccination. LIMITATIONS: Studies regarding infection rates after vaccination are lacking. CONCLUSION: Interruption of antipsoriatic oral and biologic therapies is generally not necessary for patients receiving nonlive vaccines. Temporary interruption of oral and biologic therapies before and after administration of live vaccines is recommended in most cases.

Reflections of COVID-19 on Dermatology Practice.

When the COVID-19 pandemic struck the United States in early 2020, few healthcare workers were prepared for what lay ahead. Dermatology nurses, medical assistants, and nurse practitioners experienced rapid changes in the way they conducted their daily practice. This article discusses many of those changes and explores the challenges these healthcare workers faced and continue to face. Almost every aspect of how dermatologic care was delivered prepandemic was affected. Some dermatology nurses, medical assistants, and nurse practitioners were redeployed to COVID-19 testing tents and inpatient hospital units or were asked to perform tasks to help support other healthcare workers. This article explores how clinical practice, dermatology staff, patient care, and education were affected. These changes forced dermatology healthcare workers to be brave, accept risks, and ultimately grow from these experiences.

Expediting patient appointments with dermatology rapid access clinics.

BACKGROUND: Lengthy wait times for dermatology appointments in the U.S. limit care access. The University of Pennsylvania's Department of Dermatology has established an urgent care clinic (UCC) and an intermediate care clinic (ICC) to expedite appointments for higher acuity patients. OBJECTIVE: To describe our rapid access clinics' operations, referral patterns, and distributions of diagnoses. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of dermatology consult order and appointment data for UCC, ICC, and routine care to determine the number of orders, consult appointments, and follow-up appointments; appointment wait times; and frequencies of diagnoses in referring provider and consult appointments. Press Ganey patient satisfaction ratings were also analyzed. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range) wait times for UCC, ICC, and routine care, appointments were 3 (1-8) days, 36 (15-64) days, and 45 (12-97) days, respectively (P<0.001). The proportion of referrals originating from subspecialists varied among UCC (47.6%), ICC (20.2%) and routine care (15.8%), (P<0.001). Distributions of diagnoses differed among UCC, ICC, and routine care. Ratings for most satisfaction metrics were similar across clinic settings. CONCLUSIONS: Dermatology rapid access clinics within an academic medical center can reduce wait times for higher acuity patients while maintaining patient satisfaction.

Systems intervention to promote colon cancer screening in safety net settings: protocol for a community-based participatory randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of cancer mortality. Screening can be effective but is underutilized. System- or multi-level interventions could be effective at increasing screening, but most have been implemented and evaluated in higher-resource settings such as health maintenance organizations. Given the disparities evident for colorectal cancer and the potential for screening to improve outcomes, there is a need to expand this work to include diverse settings, including those who treat economically disadvantaged patients. This paper describes the study protocol for a trial designed to increase colorectal cancer screening in those 'safety-net' health centers that serve underinsured and uninsured patients. This trial was designed and is being implemented using a community-based participatory approach. METHODS/DESIGN: We developed a practical clinical cluster-randomized controlled trial. We will recruit 16 community health centers to this trial. This systems-level intervention consists of a menu of evidence-based implementation strategies for increasing colorectal cancer screening. Health centers in the intervention arm then collaborate with the study team to tailor strategies to their own setting in order to maximize fit and acceptability. Data are collected at the organizational level through interviews, and at the provider and patient levels through surveys. Patients complete a survey about their healthcare and screening utilization at baseline, six months, and twelve months. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is colorectal cancer screening by patient self-report, supplemented by a chart-audit in a subsample of patients. Implementation outcomes informed by the Reach, Efficacy/Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) conceptual framework will be measured at patient, provider, and practice levels. DISCUSSION: Our study is one of the first to integrate community participatory strategies to a randomized controlled trial in a healthcare setting. The multi-level approach will support the ability of the intervention to affect screening through multiple avenues. The participatory approach will strengthen the chance that implementation strategies will be maintained after study completion and, supports external validity by increasing health center interest and willingness to participate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01299493.

Sarcoidosis and psoriasis: a case series and review of the literature exploring co-incidence vs coincidence.

IMPORTANCE: Sarcoidosis is a chronic multisystem disorder characterized by the formation of noncaseating epithelioid cell granulomas affecting multiple organ systems. The role of the type 1 helper T (T(H)1) cell in sarcoidal granuloma formation has been well documented, and the T(H)17 pathway in sarcoidosis is just now being investigated. T(H)17 cells are also known to involved in the pathogenesis of psoriasis, and the coexistence of sarcoidosis and psoriasis is mechanistically plausible based on potential shared underlying immunologic pathways. OBSERVATIONS: We report a case series of 7 patients with sarcoidosis and psoriasis vulgaris. All patients had psoriasis ranging from limited disease to involvement of 30% of their body surface area and had evidence of pulmonary sarcoidosis. Three of these patients also had cutaneous sarcoidosis, and 1 of these patients had evidence of both psoriasis and sarcoidosis in the same cutaneous specimen. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We report a case series of concomitant sarcoidosis and psoriasis, suggesting that common pathogenesis involving the T(H)1 and T(H)17 pathways may be responsible for this disease association. Although additional data are needed to clarify this association, this observation may lead to important understanding of the pathophysiologic and therapeutic management in these disorders.

Improving clinic- and neighborhood-based smoking cessation services within federally qualified health centers serving low-income, minority neighborhoods.

Within federally qualified health centers serving low-income, African American audiences, participatory approaches to system changes were organized through multidisciplinary committees that (a) drew on evidence-based guidelines, (b) guided system changes including the requirement of documenting smoking status and readiness to quit in encounter forms, (c) tested and refined practice improvements prior to their general adoption, and (d) guided development of neighborhood-based resources and supports for smoking cessation that were linked to clinic-based services. Documentation of smoking status or readiness to quit increased from 2% of encounter forms in the first 3 months to 94.3% in the last 3 months of the 24-month program. This rate remained over 90% throughout the following year. Exit interviews also indicated increased key clinic-based services, including "explained importance of quitting" (to 78% and 82% of interview respondents in the two intervention clinics in year 2), "tell you that you should quit" (to 80% in each), "tell you about nicotine gum...or other medications" (to 69% and 58%), "offer to help you quit" (to 61% and 64%), and "tell you about programs or help in your neighborhood" (to 51% and 56%). These rates exceeded those in one comparison clinic and equaled those in a second that also had launched a smoking cessation initiative. From exit interviews, improvements in neighborhood resources and support (e.g., people and activities that encourage nonsmoking) also exceeded those in comparison clinics. Thus, participatory approaches to system changes and quality improvement can enhance clinic- and neighborhood-based smoking cessation services within health centers serving low-income, minority populations.