CHILD syndrome: A modified pathogenesis-targeted therapeutic approach.

Congenital Hemidysplasia with Ichthyosiform nevus and Limb Defects (CHILD syndrome) is a rare X-linked dominant genodermatosis caused by mutations in the NAD(P) dependent steroid dehydrogenase-like protein gene. Its defect leads to accumulation of toxic metabolic intermediates upstream from the pathway block and to the deficiency of bulk cholesterol, probably leading to altered keratinocyte membrane function, resulting in the phenotype seen in CHILD syndrome. Symptomatic treatment using emollients and retinoids to reduce scaling has long been used until recently, whereby new therapeutic means based on the pathogenesis-targeted therapy have been developed. We subsequently chose to use the same pathogenesis-based therapy using a 2% cholesterol and 2% lovastatin cream with or without glycolic acid in two of our patients. Improvement in CHILD skin lesions was seen as early as 4 weeks after initiation. The addition of glycolic acid helped improve the penetrance of the cholesterol and lovastatin cream into the thick waxy scales. Our study confirms the efficacy of the pathogenesis-targeted therapy and introduces the possibility of modifying its formula by adding glycolic acid in order to improve the treatment.

Sun protection use and habits in the LGBTQI+ community in Lebanon: A cross sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Sun exposure is an extrinsic risk factor for skin aging, wrinkle formation, and the development of skin cancer, namely melanoma, basal cell carcinoma (BCC), and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Sun protection measures have emerged as an important means of preventing these harmful effects. Studies have shown that sexual minority men have a greater prevalence of skin cancer than heterosexual men. AIMS: There is limited research investigating the reasons behind this risk of skin cancer development. This is especially important because identifying preventable risk factors, like those pertaining to sun exposure behaviors, can be targeted in the fight against skin cancer and help establish screening tools and preventive interventions for the SGM community. This study focused on members of the SGM community and demonstrated their tendency not to use sun-protective measures, as well as their deficits in knowledge of skin cancer prevention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study is a cross-sectional study that investigates sun protection practices and trends among adults in Lebanon's SGM community using a survey. It includes adults aged 18-80 that were recruited from the dermatology clinics at AUBMC as well as LGBTQ+ organizations Helm and SIDC. RESULTS: A total of 129 participants took part in the study and completed the survey. Reasons for tanning varied among our participants: tanning to get a color (13.1%), tanning to get vitamin D (4.6%), tanning socially (6.9%), and tanning for mood elevation (0.8%). No significant association was found between sexual orientation and SPF use (p = 0.167). No significant association was found between sexual orientation and tanning frequency during summer (p-value: 0.231). Similarly, no significant association was noted between sexual orientation and tanning bed use (0.951). No significant association was noted between the type of job and SPF use (p = 0.601). Despite no significance between SPF use and the highest educational degree attained (p = 0.070), the tendency to use SPF increased with higher levels of education. Moreover, awareness of sun-induced skin cancer did not significantly affect SPF use (p = 0.067). However, a significant association was found between the information source for skin cancer and SPF use (p < 0.001) where participants receiving information from dermatologists displayed notably higher SPF use (72.2%), compared to those obtaining information from media (18.2%) or family and friends (5.3%). DISCUSSION: Surveying the perception of the Lebanese SGM community towards sun damage and their adaptive practices to prevent it can help implement and gear a nation-wide campaign to spread proper awareness about this subject. Studying their behavioral tendencies for not using sunscreen can help overcome this contributing risk factor for skin cancers. CONCLUSION: Future investigations have yet to identify confounding variables contributing to higher levels of skin cancers in this population.

Infantile Hemangiomas.

Infantile hemangiomas (IHs) are the most common benign vascular tumors of childhood. They develop during the first few weeks of life and naturally progress by proliferating over several months before they involute and resolve; this renders them inconsequential in many cases, but sometimes IHs can have detrimental consequences on function and disfigurement. Hence, systemic propranolol has become a crucial element in IH management, alongside various other medical, procedural, and surgical options that aim to promote their quicker resolution and prevent and alleviate complications.

Treatments for Non-Syndromic Inherited Ichthyosis, Including Emergent Pathogenesis-Related Therapy.

The term 'inherited ichthyosis' refers to a heterogeneous group of mendelian disorders of cornification that involve the integument with varying degrees of scaling. The management of ichthyosis poses a challenge for most physicians. Treatment options proposed in the literature include moisturizers, topical keratolytics, topical and systemic vitamin D analogues, and topical and systemic retinoids; however, some of these modalities are less reliable than others. Despite the therapeutic impasse imposed by the options above, the emergence of pathogenesis-based treatments along with novel gene therapies appear promising and hold the potential to halt or even revert disorders that arise from single genetic mutations, although research is still quite lacking in this domain. Hence, this review aims to highlight the various treatment modalities available for the management of the cutaneous manifestations of non-syndromic inherited ichthyosis, with an added emphasis on pathogenesis-targeted therapies.

Authors of clinical trials seldom reported details when declaring their individual and institutional financial conflicts of interest: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: The main objective of this study was to document details of both individual and institutional financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) reported by the authors of clinical trials. An additional objective was to assess the predictors of having at least one author reporting any FCOI. METHODS: We used a sample of randomized controlled trials from a previous cross-sectional survey and included the trials, which reported at least one FCOI disclosure. We categorized the types of disclosed FCOI as grant, employment income, personal fees, nonmonetary support, drug or equipment supplies, patent, stocks, and other types. We collected data on the characteristics of the included RCTs, of the authors, and of the reported FCOI disclosures. We conducted descriptive analyses and a regression analysis to assess the predictors of having at least one author reporting any FCOI. RESULTS: All 108 included RCTs reported being funded, with 58% reporting funding by a private-for-profit source. Out of 1,687 authors, 814 (48%) reported at least one, and a median of 2, FCOI disclosures. Of the 814 reporting disclosures, far more reported individual FCOIs (99%) than institutional FCOIs (6%). The most commonly reported individual FCOI subtypes were grant (49%), personal fees (48%), and employment income (22%). Of the 99% of disclosures that included the source of FCOI, a private-for-profit entity provided the funds in 85%. Reporting about the relation of the FCOI source's to the product investigated in the trial, the timing of FCOI, and monetary value of FCOI was limited. Reporting of FCOIs proved most strongly associated with author affiliation being an academic institution (OR = 2.981; 95% CI: 2.415-3.680) and trial funding from entity other than a private-for-profit entity (OR = 2.809; 95% CI: 2.274-3.470). CONCLUSION: Approximately half of the trial authors report individual FCOIs, often three or more, but seldom provide details related to source's relation to the trial, or the timing and monetary value of the FCOI.

Use of Topical Glycolic Acid Plus a Lovastatin-Cholesterol Combination Cream for the Treatment of Autosomal Recessive Congenital Ichthyoses.

Importance: Autosomal recessive congenital ichthyosis (ARCI) is a heterogeneous group of disorders caused by defects in signaling pathways involved in epidermal proliferation and differentiation, leading to a wide range of skin manifestations. Therapeutic options are limited and often unsatisfactory. Topical cholesterol and statin as a combined formulation has proven successful in the treatment of patients with CHILD syndrome (congenital hemidysplasia ichthyosis and limb defects). Objective: To assess change in disease severity score after a 3-month therapeutic regimen consisting of a glycolic acid, 10% to 20%, cream and a combination cream of lovastatin, 2%, with cholesterol, 2%, in the treatment of ARCI. Design, Setting, and Participants: This case series of 15 patients with ARCI was conducted at the American University of Beirut, a referral center in the Middle East region for genodermatoses, between May 2017 and January 2018. No age groups were excluded; all patients were from the Middle East area; and all were initially not responsive to treatment with hydrating creams in combination with urea creams, 30% to 40%, or glycolic acid, 10% to 20%. Excluded were patients who had been taking systemic retinoids within 3 months before the start of the study. Interventions: A 3-month therapeutic regimen of glycolic acid, 10% to 20%, cream and a combination of lovastatin, 2%, with cholesterol, 2%, cream. Main Outcomes and Measures: Percentage change in disease severity scores following 2 and 3 months of study treatment. Results: Of the 15 patients included in the study, 10 were male (mean age, 11.2 years; age range, 2-38 years). The average percentage reduction in the disease severity score was 33.7% at 2 months (from 60.8 to 40.2) and 57.5% at 3 months (from 60.8 to 21.9). Adverse effects were mild and consisted mainly of irritation and burning. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest a benefit from a treatment regimen consisting of glycolic acid, 10% to 20%, and a combination of lovastatin, 2%, with cholesterol, 2%, in the treatment of ARCI. This combination of creams might also prove to be beneficial in other types of ichthyoses and other dermatological diseases with a defective skin barrier.

Authors of clinical trials reported individual and financial conflicts of interest more frequently than institutional and nonfinancial ones: a methodological survey.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Conflicts of interest (COIs) are increasingly recognized as important to disclose and manage in health research. The objective of this study was to assess the reporting of both financial and nonfinancial COI by authors of randomized controlled trials published in a representative sample of clinical journals. METHODS: We searched Ovid Medline and included a random sample of 200 randomized controlled trials published in 2015 in one of the 119 Core Clinical Journals. We classified COI using a comprehensive framework that includes the following: individual COIs (financial, professional, scholarly, advocatory, personal) and institutional COIs (financial, professional, scholarly, and advocatory). We conducted descriptive and regression analyses. RESULTS: Of the 200 randomized controlled trials, 188 (94%) reported authors' COI disclosures that were available in the main document (92%) and as International Committee of Medical Journal Editors forms accessible online (12%). Of the 188 trials, 57% had at least one author reporting at least one COI; in all these trials, at least one author reported financial COI. Institutional COIs (11%) and nonfinancial COIs (4%) were less commonly reported. References to COI disclosure statements for editors (1%) and medical writers (0%) were seldom present. Regression analyses showed positive associations between reporting individual financial COI and higher journal impact factor (odds ratio [OR] = 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.02-1.10), larger number of authors (OR = 1.10, 95% CI 1.02-1.20), affiliation with an institution from a high-income country (OR = 16.75, 95% CI 3.38-82.87), and trials reporting on pharmacological interventions (OR = 2.28, 95% CI 1.13-4.62). CONCLUSION: More than half of published randomized controlled trials report that at least one author has a COI. Trial authors report financial COIs more often than nonfinancial COIs and individual COIs more frequently than institutional COIs.

Characteristics of funding of clinical trials: cross-sectional survey and proposed guidance.

OBJECTIVES: To provide a detailed and current characterisation of funding of a representative sample clinical trials. We also aimed to develop guidance for standardised reporting of funding information. METHODS: We addressed the extent to which clinical trials published in 2015 in any of the 119 Core Clinical Journals included a statement on the funding source (eg, whether a not-for-profit organisation was supported by a private-for-profit organisation), type of funding, amount and role of funder. We used a stepwise approach to develop a guidance and an instrument for standardised reporting of funding information. RESULTS: Of 200 trials, 178 (89%) included a funding statement, of which 171 (96%) reported being funded. Funding statements in the 171 funded trials indicated the source in 100%, amount in 1% and roles of funders in 50%. The most frequent sources were governmental (58%) and private-for-profit (40%). Of 54 funding statements in which the source was a not-for-profit organisation, we found evidence of undisclosed support of those from private-for-profit organisation(s) in 26 (48%). The most frequently reported roles of funders in the 171 funded trials related to study design (42%) and data analysis, interpretation or management (41%). Of 139 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) addressing pharmacological or surgical interventions, 29 (21%) reported information on the supplier of the medication or device. The proposed guidance addresses both the funding information that RCTs should report and the reporting process. Attached to the guidance is a fillable PDF document for use as an instrument for standardised reporting of funding information. CONCLUSION: Although the majority of RCTs report funding, there is considerable variability in the reporting of funding source, amount and roles of funders. A standardised approach to reporting of funding information would address these limitations. Future research should explore the implications of funding by not-for-profit organisations that are supported by for-profit organisations.

Reporting of financial and non-financial conflicts of interest by authors of systematic reviews: a methodological survey.

BACKGROUND: Conflicts of interest may bias the findings of systematic reviews. The objective of this methodological survey was to assess the frequency and different types of conflicts of interest that authors of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews report. METHODS: We searched for systematic reviews using the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Ovid MEDLINE (limited to the 119 Core Clinical Journals and the year 2015). We defined a conflict of interest disclosure as the reporting of whether a conflict of interest exists or not, and used a framework to classify conflicts of interest into individual (financial, professional and intellectual) and institutional (financial and advocatory) conflicts of interest. We conducted descriptive and regression analyses. RESULTS: Of the 200 systematic reviews, 194 (97%) reported authors' conflicts of interest disclosures, typically in the main document, and in a few cases either online (2%) or on request (5%). Of the 194 Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, 49% and 33%, respectively, had at least one author reporting any type of conflict of interest (p=0.023). Institutional conflicts of interest were less frequently reported than individual conflicts of interest, and Cochrane reviews were more likely to report individual intellectual conflicts of interest compared with non-Cochrane reviews (19% and 5%, respectively, p=0.004). Regression analyses showed a positive association between reporting of conflicts of interest (at least one type of conflict of interest, individual financial conflict of interest, institutional financial conflict of interest) and journal impact factor and between reporting individual financial conflicts of interest and pharmacological versus non-pharmacological intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Although close to half of the published systematic reviews report that authors (typically many) have conflicts of interest, more than half report that they do not. Authors reported individual conflicts of interest more frequently than institutional and non-financial conflicts of interest.