Teledermatology in Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review.

Telemedicine use has been increasing especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Various studies have outlined benefits of telemedicine including improving health equity, reducing wait times, and cost-effectiveness. Skin diseases such as atopic dermatitis (AD) may potentially be managed via telemedicine. However, there are no evidence-based recommendations for best practices in telemedicine for assessing AD patients. The objective of this review is to assess and summarize current evidence on telemedicine modalities for AD. This review will assess patient outcomes from various telemedicine models for AD. A review protocol was developed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Two reviewers independently screened potential studies and extracted data. Studies were included if they evaluated any telemedicine assessment for AD. Of 2719 identified records, 5 reports were included. Two reports used the direct-access online model, 1 used web-based consultation, 1 used e-health through a personal eczema portal, and 1 used an online platform and mobile application. All models were variations of the asynchronous, store and forward model. In all the included reports, teledermatology for the follow-up of patients with AD was effective and equivalent when compared to in-person appointments or standard treatment for their respective key outcome measures. However, it is unclear what the most effective teledermatology model is due to significant heterogeneity between studies. Teledermatology may serve as an important tool for triaging and follow-up of patients with AD. More studies are needed to determine which teledermatology models are most effective for virtual assessment of AD.

Aesthetic Dermatologic Surgery Training in Canadian Residency Programs.

BACKGROUND:: The public and other physicians expect dermatologists to be experts on aesthetic dermatology services. In Canada, current challenges may limit residents from achieving competency in aesthetic dermatology during their training. This may adversely affect patient safety, create medicolegal risks, and deter graduates from offering aesthetic procedures. OBJECTIVES:: The objective of this article is to characterize the curriculum, hands-on learning opportunities, and perceptions of aesthetic dermatologic training in Canadian dermatology residency training programs. METHODS:: An online survey of faculty and residents within Canadian dermatology residency programs was performed. The main outcome measures were the hours of formal aesthetic dermatology teaching, the frequency of hands-on dermatology resident training with injectables and devices, and comparing faculty and resident perspectives regarding resident aesthetic dermatology training. RESULTS:: Thirty-six faculty members (40%) and 47 residents (34%) responded to the survey. Lasers, fillers, neuromodulators, and mole removal were most commonly taught in the 10 hours or fewer of formal instruction. Residents commonly observed rather than performed procedures. High dissatisfaction among residents was reported with the quality and quantity of aesthetic dermatology training. Faculty and resident respondents supported increasing aesthetic dermatology education, and approximately 70% of residents plan to offer aesthetic services. Discounted pricing or resident-led clinics were felt to be ways to increase resident hands-on experience. CONCLUSIONS:: The standardization of core competencies in aesthetic dermatologic procedures is essential to ensure patient safety and practitioner competence. At present, formal aesthetic dermatology training in residency may be insufficient for hands-on training. The majority of dermatology faculty and resident respondents support increasing aesthetic dermatology training.

Validation of the Healthy Foot Screen: A Novel Assessment Tool for Common Clinical Abnormalities.

GENERAL PURPOSE: The purpose of this learning activity is to provide information about the Healthy Foot Screen, a new tool for assessment of common foot abnormalities. TARGET AUDIENCE: This continuing education activity is intended for physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurses with an interest in skin and wound care. LEARNING OBJECTIVES/OUTCOMES: After completing this continuing education activity, you should be able to:1. Recognize prevalence, causes, risk factors, signs, and types of common foot problems.2. Identify the results of this study about the new foot screening tool and its implications in primary care. ABSTRACT: Foot health is a key component of general health and well-being. Nevertheless, feet are often overlooked by healthcare providers and patients. Common foot problems include infections or inflammatory conditions, abnormal nail disorders (eg, onychomycosis), structural bony abnormalities, circulation disorders, and other conditions. The development of an easy-to-use, rapid, clinical tool to assess foot health can facilitate primary care provider recognition and treatment of common foot problems. This study ascertained interrater item reliability and validity from the preliminary version of one such tool called the Healthy Foot Screen.A total of 18 patients from a community dermatology clinic were individually screened by 11 interprofessional healthcare assessors using the preliminary tool. The assessors included a dermatologist/internist, family physicians, nurses, and podiatrists. The initial draft of the Healthy Foot Screen was created through an extensive literature review, complemented by the clinical judgment of the study team. Cronbach α was calculated for each item to determine interrater reliability. A minimum value of 0.6 was set for an item to be included in the final tool. Where applicable, scores for each item on the screen were calculated for right and left lower limbs and then averaged. Assessors were asked to complete a short survey.Interrater reliability scores for items on the screen were as follows: diabetes and smoking, 1.0; neuropathy, 0.988; palpable foot pulse, 0.916; abnormal fourth to fifth toe web space, 0.905; previous ulcer/amputation, 0.869; pitting edema, 0.872; bony abnormality, 0.804; dry bottom of foot, 0.799; toenail infection, 0.793; other spots/lesions,0.688; and red areas/blisters/pustules, 0.659. Generally, assessors found the tool easy to use, although some areas for improvement were noted.The Healthy Foot Screen can facilitate primary care provider diagnosis and treatment of common foot problems.

Persistency of Biologic Therapies for Plaque Psoriasis in 2 Large Community Practices.

BACKGROUND: Biologics have transformed the management of moderate to severe psoriasis. The persistency of biologics lacks real-world data. OBJECTIVES: To quantify drug survival of infliximab (IFX), adalimumab (ADA), etanercept (ETA), and ustekinumab (UST) and to identify potential factors affecting drug survival. METHODS: An observational, retrospective 2-centre study consisting of 906 patients from private practices in Ontario between July 2003 and June 13, 2016, was conducted, including patients with plaque psoriasis receiving commercial treatment with ADA, ETA, IFX, and UST. Paper and electronic records of each patient were reviewed. RESULTS: Median survival times for UST, IFX, ADA, and ETA were respectively, in months, 68, 23, 33, and 28. Female sex was determined to be a statistically significant positive predictor of drug survival. Our study was consistent with the literature in that UST had the highest survival rate compared to the other biologics, and the shape of our drug survival curve suggested that loss of drug efficacy is a stochastic occurrence. Compared to other studies, our data exhibited lower survival rates at various time points for all the biologics studied, and female sex did not predict drug survival in other studies. We also investigated potential reasons for differences in biologic survival times between different practices; the main differentiator was drug dosage, as higher dosages were associated with greater survival. CONCLUSION: UST has a higher drug survival rate than ADA, ETA, and IFX, as observed in other studies. When practice patterns are compared, dosage difference is the main factor that may cause differing survival rates.