The continued inappropriate use and overuse of combination topical clotrimazole-betamethasone.

OBJECTIVE: Combination topical clotrimazole/ betamethasone dipropionate (C-BM) contains a high-potency topical corticosteroid and is not infrequently prescribed for inappropriate patient groups and body sites. Use of C-BM can lead to inadequate clearance or exacerbation of fungal infections as well as cutaneous atrophy, striae, and other skin maladies. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of 1,978 clinical visits where C-BM was prescribed within the University of Utah Health system between 2014 and 2018 to better understand current prescribing patterns. RESULTS: 1,974 prescriptions were written for C-BM. 91.6% of patients were at least the recommended age of 17 years. C-BM was most commonly prescribed for rashes of an inflammatory (42.2%) or fungal nature (38.1%). Clotrimazole/betamethasone dipropionate was prescribed for sensitive areas (face, axillae, groin or diaper region) in 48.9% of patients. Family medicine clinicians prescribed 58.3% of C-BM prescriptions, whereas dermatology clinicians accounted for 3.4%. CONCLUSION: We strongly recommend clinicians use alternative treatments for rashes or refer to dermatologists.

Examining Dermatologist Use and Opinions of Ultraviolet Radiation for Cosmetic and Medical Purposes.

BACKGROUND: The commercial tanning industry has opposed efforts to educate the public on the risks of tanning as well as attempts to restrict minors' access to tanning services. Despite a paucity of supporting literature, statements from the tanning industry claiming that dermatologists routinely use in-office phototherapy for cosmetic treatments and refer patients to tanning salons have successfully derailed and defeated legislation in many states. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate dermatologist referrals for ultraviolet radiation for cosmetic and medical purposes via tanning beds or phototherapy, as well as their opinions on tanning, legislation, and ultraviolet radiation counseling practices. DESIGN: The study was conducted using a 10-question anonymous survey. SETTING: The participants were surveyed during meetings of three regional dermatologic societies. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and fifty-two dermatologists attending society meetings participated in the study. MEASURES: The authors measured physician referrals, opinions, and recommendations regarding ultraviolet exposure. RESULTS: Zero physicians (0/152) recommended tanning salons for cosmetic reasons. These 152 dermatologists referred 458 (417 adult, 41 pediatric) out of an estimated 809,369 patients (0.057%) to tanning salons for medical treatment. Of these physicians, 76 out of 152 and 15 out of 152 reported referring at least one adult or one pediatric patient, respectively, within the last year. All respondents supported ultraviolet tanning legislation and discouraged cosmetic tanning. CONCLUSION: These findings directly contradict the assertion that dermatologists use ultraviolet radiation for cosmetic purposes or routinely refer patients to tanning salons. This study underscores the complex nature of ultraviolet radiation, as dermatologists infrequently utilize ultraviolet radiation for medical purposes and unanimously support restrictive legislation. In addition, these dermatologists counsel against cosmetic tanning and list tanning bed use among their highest concerns with regard to the health of pediatric patients.