ABSTRACT
The American Academy of Dermatology first published a series of guidelines for diagnosing and managing atopic dermatitis in 2014. Twelve clinicians were selected to review, grade, and offer clinical insight on available data regarding the clinical features, symptomology, pathophysiology, education, treatment, and emerging clinical studies on atopic dermatitis (AD). Based on these findings, the AAD released a guideline to streamline information on atopic dermatitis for physicians, recommending using clinical evidence to diagnose and first treating with nonpharmacologic therapies to restore the natural skin barrier. Topical pharmacologic therapies were recommended for improving pruritus and inflammation and newer systemic agents for clinically relevant moderate-to-severe cases. Evidence-based practices were emphasized in comparison to those that lacked therapeutic data. To highlight the emerging evidence and pharmacologic breakthroughs in atopic dermatitis, the AAD produced an updated set of guidelines educating physicians on new agents and their role in treatment. This chapter reviews the AAD guidelines as a tool for managing atopic dermatitis and staying up to date on disease advancements.
Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Atopic , Dermatology , Humans , Dermatitis, Atopic/therapy , Dermatitis, Atopic/diagnosis , Dermatologic Agents/therapeutic use , Dermatology/standards , Dermatology/methods , Evidence-Based Medicine/standards , Practice Guidelines as Topic , United StatesABSTRACT
Sebaceous gland carcinomas are rare malignant cutaneous adnexal tumors with sebocytic differentiation. The typical predilection area is the head and neck region, where sebaceous gland carcinomas are the most common malignant adnexal tumors of the skin. According to their localization a distinction is made between periocular and extraocular sebaceous gland carcinomas. Muir-Torre syndrome (MTS) should always be ruled out if it is suspected. In terms of prognosis, sebaceous gland carcinomas are potentially aggressive tumors with a clear tendency to recur and metastasize. Only small extraocular sebaceous gland carcinomas that have been completely resected have a very good prognosis. Sebaceous gland carcinomas most frequently metastasize lymphogenously to regional or distant lymph nodes; organ metastasis occurs less frequently. Periocular sebaceous gland carcinomas have a higher metastasis rate (up to 15%) than extraocular sebaceous gland carcinomas (up to 2%). Complete micrographically controlled surgery (MCS) of the primary tumor is the therapy of first choice, regardless of periocular or extraocular localization. Adjuvant or therapeutic radiotherapy may be considered. There is currently no established standard therapy for advanced, inoperable, or metastatic sebaceous gland carcinomas. Local procedures and systemic therapies such as chemotherapy or immunotherapy can be considered. The procedure should be determined individually by an interdisciplinary tumor board. Close follow-up care is recommended for these potentially aggressive carcinomas.
Subject(s)
Sebaceous Gland Neoplasms , Sebaceous Gland Neoplasms/pathology , Sebaceous Gland Neoplasms/therapy , Sebaceous Gland Neoplasms/diagnosis , Humans , Muir-Torre Syndrome/pathology , Muir-Torre Syndrome/diagnosis , Muir-Torre Syndrome/therapy , Prognosis , Adenocarcinoma, Sebaceous/pathology , Adenocarcinoma, Sebaceous/therapy , Adenocarcinoma, Sebaceous/diagnosis , Dermatology/standards , Germany , Mohs Surgery , Practice Guidelines as TopicABSTRACT
This study focused on evaluating Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes (ECHO) participating primary care clinician's (PCC's) diagnostic and treatment accuracy of pediatric dermatologic conditions. To evaluate this, pediatric cases presented to Dermatology ECHO by PCCs with questions regarding diagnosis, treatment regimen, or both were analyzed. After PCC case presentation, the hub team of dermatologists facilitated case-based discussion and provided the presenter with mentorship and guidance regarding diagnosis and treatment of their patient.
Subject(s)
Dermatology , Quality Improvement , Skin Diseases , Humans , Dermatology/standards , Child , Skin Diseases/therapy , Skin Diseases/diagnosis , Community Health Services , Male , Female , Pediatrics/standards , Child, Preschool , Primary Health Care , Infant , Adolescent , Quality of Health CareABSTRACT
The Global Guidelines in Dermatology Mapping Project (GUIDEMAP) assesses the methodological quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for high-burden skin diseases. This review focuses on contact dermatitis. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare, Epistemonikos, PsycINFO and Academic Search Premier for CPGs published between 1 November 2018 and 1 November 2023. Prespecified guideline resources were hand searched. Two authors independently undertook screening, data extraction and quality assessments. Instruments used were the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II Reporting Checklist, the U.S. Institute of Medicine's (IOM) criteria of trustworthiness, The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's National Guideline Clearinghouse Extent Adherence to Trustworthy Standards (NEATS) Instrument and Lenzer's Red Flags. Twenty five CPGs were included, exhibiting heterogeneity in both the topics they addressed and their methodological quality. Whereas the CPGs on management of hand eczema from Denmark, Europe and the Netherlands scored best, most CPGs fell short of being clear, unbiased, trustworthy and evidence-based. Disclosure of conflicts of interest scored well, and areas needing improvement include 'strength and wording of recommendations', 'applicability', 'updating' and 'external review'. Adhering to AGREE II and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) enhances methodological quality.
Subject(s)
Practice Guidelines as Topic , Humans , Dermatitis, Contact/diagnosis , Dermatology/standardsSubject(s)
Dermatology , Social Media , Humans , Dermatology/standards , Cosmetic Techniques/standardsABSTRACT
Introduction: Teledermatology adoption continues to increase, in part, spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic. This study analyzes the utility and cost savings of a store-and-forward teledermatology consultative system within the Veterans Health Administration (VA). Methods: Retrospective cohort of 4,493 patients across 14 remote sites in Tennessee and Kentucky from May 2017 through August 2019. The study measured the agreement between the teledermatology diagnoses and follow-up face-to-face clinic evaluations as well as the cost effectiveness of the teledermatology program over the study period. Results: Fifty-four percent of patients were recommended for face-to-face appointment for biopsy or further evaluation. Most patients, 80.5% received their face-to-face care by a VA dermatologist. There was a high level of concordance between teledermatologist and clinic dermatologist for pre-malignant and malignant cutaneous conditions. Veterans were seen faster at a VA clinic compared with a community dermatology site. Image quality improved as photographers incorporated teledermatologist feedback. From a cost perspective, teledermatology saved the VA system $1,076,000 in community care costs. Discussion: Teledermatology is a useful diagnostic tool within the VA system providing Veteran care at a cost savings.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cost Savings , Dermatology , Skin Diseases , Telemedicine , United States Department of Veterans Affairs , Humans , Dermatology/economics , Dermatology/standards , Dermatology/organization & administration , Retrospective Studies , Skin Diseases/diagnosis , Skin Diseases/economics , United States , Telemedicine/economics , United States Department of Veterans Affairs/organization & administration , Female , Kentucky , Male , Quality Control , Middle Aged , Tennessee , SARS-CoV-2 , Remote Consultation/economics , Aged , Cost-Benefit AnalysisABSTRACT
La definición de indicadores de calidad es una estrategia clave para garantizar la calidad de la asistencia sanitaria y su homogenización. Así, el proyecto CUDERMA surge como una iniciativa de la AEDV para definir indicadores de calidad con los que certificar unidades de distintos campos de interés en la dermatología, de los que se seleccionaron psoriasis y dermatooncología de forma inicial. El objetivo de este trabajo fue consensuar los aspectos a evaluar por los indicadores en la certificación de las unidades de psoriasis. Para ello se siguió un proceso estructurado que contempló la revisión bibliográfica de indicadores, la elaboración de un set preliminar revisado por un grupo de expertos multidisciplinar y el consenso Delphi. Un panel de 39 dermatólogos evaluó los indicadores, y los clasificó como «básicos» o «de excelencia». Finalmente se consensuaron 67 indicadores que serán estandarizados para diseñar la norma con la que certificar las unidades de psoriasis (AU)
Defining quality indicators is a key strategy for ensuring the quality and standardization of health care. The CUDERMA project, an initiative of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venerology (AEDV), was undertaken to define quality indicators for the certification of specialized units in dermatology; the first 2 areas selected were psoriasis and dermato-oncology. The aim of this study was to reach a consensus on what should be assessed by the indicators used to certify psoriasis units. The structured process used to do this comprised a literature review to identify potential indicators, the selection of an initial set of indicators to be evaluated by a multidisciplinary group of experts and, finally, a Delphi consensus study. A panel of 39 dermatologists evaluated the selected indicators and classified them as either essential or of excellence. Consensus was finally reached on 67 indicators, which will be standardized and used to develop the certification standard for psoriasis units (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Quality of Health Care , Total Quality Management , Dermatology/standards , Psoriasis/therapy , Delphi TechniqueABSTRACT
Defining quality indicators is a key strategy for ensuring the quality and standardization of health care. The CUDERMA project, an initiative of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venerology (AEDV), was undertaken to define quality indicators for the certification of specialized units in dermatology; the first 2 areas selected were psoriasis and dermato-oncology. The aim of this study was to reach a consensus on what should be assessed by the indicators used to certify psoriasis units. The structured process used to do this comprised a literature review to identify potential indicators, the selection of an initial set of indicators to be evaluated by a multidisciplinary group of experts and, finally, a Delphi consensus study. A panel of 39 dermatologists evaluated the selected indicators and classified them as either essential or of excellence. Consensus was finally reached on 67 indicators, which will be standardized and used to develop the certification standard for psoriasis units (AU)
La definición de indicadores de calidad es una estrategia clave para garantizar la calidad de la asistencia sanitaria y su homogenización. Así, el proyecto CUDERMA surge como una iniciativa de la AEDV para definir indicadores de calidad con los que certificar unidades de distintos campos de interés en la dermatología, de los que se seleccionaron psoriasis y dermatooncología de forma inicial. El objetivo de este trabajo fue consensuar los aspectos a evaluar por los indicadores en la certificación de las unidades de psoriasis. Para ello se siguió un proceso estructurado que contempló la revisión bibliográfica de indicadores, la elaboración de un set preliminar revisado por un grupo de expertos multidisciplinar y el consenso Delphi. Un panel de 39 dermatólogos evaluó los indicadores, y los clasificó como «básicos» o «de excelencia». Finalmente se consensuaron 67 indicadores que serán estandarizados para diseñar la norma con la que certificar las unidades de psoriasis (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Quality of Health Care , Total Quality Management , Dermatology/standards , Psoriasis/therapy , Delphi TechniqueSubject(s)
Dermatology , Hispanic or Latino , Patient Care , Skin Care , Humans , Dermatology/standards , Skin Care/standards , Patient Care/standardsABSTRACT
Pemphigus is an uncommon but life-threatening autoimmune blistering disease characterized by the presence of antibodies against desmogleins. Without effective treatment, pemphigus can result in significant morbidity and mortality. Existing consensus statements on pemphigus management from international medical groups provide varying guidelines, especially on treatment. Thus, on January 4, 2020, a panel of seven dermatology experts from the Taiwanese Dermatological Association (TDA) and one rheumatology expert convened to develop a consensus for the management of pemphigus. These experts with extensive experience in pemphigus management were recommended by their respective teaching hospitals and primary care clinics in Taiwan and by the TDA. The meeting reviewed the available consensus statements from international dermatology groups, including the European Dermatology Forum (EDF), the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV), and the International Bullous Diseases Consensus Group. Using these guidelines as a basis for discussion and consensus formulation, these experts formulated their consensus statement that provides practical, concise but comprehensive recommendations as to the diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of pemphigus patients in Taiwan. This consensus serves as a clinical reference for physicians for the management of pemphigus in Taiwan or wherever it may be applicable.
Subject(s)
Dermatology , Pemphigus , Humans , Dermatology/standards , Pemphigus/diagnosis , Pemphigus/therapy , Taiwan , Societies, Medical , ConsensusABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Appropriate use criteria (AUC) provide patient-centered physician guidance in test selection. An initial set of AUC was reported by the American Society of Dermatopathology (ASDP) in 2018. AUC reflect evidence collected at single timepoints and may be affected by evolving evidence and experience. The objective of this study was to update and expand AUC for selected tests. METHODS: RAND/UCLA (RAND Corporation [Santa Monica, CA]/University of California Los Angeles) methodology used includes the following: (a) literature review; (b) review of previously rated tests and previously employed clinical scenarios; (c) selection of previously rated tests for new ratings; (d) development of new clinical scenarios; (e) selection of additional tests; (f) three rating rounds with feedback and group discussion after rounds 1 and 2. RESULTS: For 220 clinical scenarios comprising lymphoproliferative (light chain clonality), melanocytic (comparative genomic hybridization, fluorescence in situ hybridization, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction, telomerase reverse transcriptase promoter), vascular disorders (MYC), and inflammatory dermatoses (periodic acid-Schiff, Gömöri methenamine silver), consensus by panel raters was reached in 172 of 220 (78%) scenarios, with 103 of 148 (70%) rated "usually appropriate" or "rarely appropriate" and 45 of 148 (30%), "appropriateness uncertain." LIMITATIONS: The study design only measures appropriateness. Cost, availability, test comparison, and additional clinical considerations are not measured. The possibility that the findings of this study may be influenced by the inherent biases of the dermatopathologists involved in the study cannot be excluded. CONCLUSIONS: AUC are reported for selected diagnostic tests in clinical scenarios that occur in dermatopathology practice. Adhering to AUC may reduce inappropriate test utilization and improve healthcare delivery.
Subject(s)
Dermatology/standards , Pathology, Clinical/standards , Skin Diseases/pathology , Evidence-Based Medicine/standards , Humans , Societies, Medical , United StatesABSTRACT
This systematic review aims to provide an update on measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures for pruritus. A Medline literature search was conducted to update the systematic review published in this journal in 2017 and to identify new validation studies published between October 2015 and July 2019. The methodological quality of validation studies was assessed on the basis of the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist, and the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures were evaluated. A total of 19 new studies were included and added to the 22 studies identified in the previously published review. Evidence from all the 41 studies evaluating 38 different measures was summarized. Outcome measures were mapped to one of three constructs where possible: pruritus intensity, pruritus severity, pruritus-specific health-related QOL. COSMIN rating revealed mixed results, with deficiencies in the methodological quality of many studies across all constructs. The most appropriate pruritus severity measure was the Itch Severity Scale. ItchyQoL and the disease-specific Uremic Pruritus in Dialysis Scale achieved the most promising results considering the construct pruritus-specific health-related QOL. For pruritus intensity, nine measures performed similarly well.
Subject(s)
Patient Reported Outcome Measures , Pruritus/diagnosis , Quality of Life , Severity of Illness Index , Consensus , Dermatology/methods , Dermatology/standards , Humans , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Pruritus/psychology , Pruritus/therapy , Psychometrics/methods , Psychometrics/standardsABSTRACT
Internists are front-line health care providers that commonly provide the first encounter to patients for dermatological conditions, especially atopic dermatitis (AD). Internists need to be comfortable with managing mild-moderate AD in their practices. Criteria and guidelines established in dermatology literature are available to help the general practitioner diagnose and treat AD. AD is a systemic disease associated with multiple cutaneous and extra-cutaneous comorbidities that warrant screening by internists, especially mental health conditions. Environmental factors may play a role in the development or worsening of AD; however, there is currently no strong evidence to guide specific population- or clinic-based interventions for their avoidance. While food allergies are common in AD patients, the role of food allergens as an exacerbating factor for AD is controversial. Before starting any dietary modifications, careful evaluation should be performed by an allergist. If the patient is not well-controlled despite adequate topical therapies or is experiencing severe/worsening disease, early referral to dermatology is warranted to rule out confounding diagnoses and/or escalation to systemic therapies. Finally, it is important to recognise the racial disparities present in AD and address these when formulating treatment plans.Key messages:Confounding dermatoses, either instead of or in addition to AD, should be considered in treatment-refractory AD, and the appropriate workup may be initiated while awaiting dermatology referral.AD patients have multiple cutaneous and extra-cutaneous comorbidities that warrant screening by internists, especially mental health conditions.
Subject(s)
Dermatitis, Atopic , Dermatology/standards , Mental Health , Depression , Dermatitis, Atopic/diagnosis , Dermatitis, Atopic/epidemiology , Dermatitis, Atopic/therapy , Disease Management , Food Hypersensitivity , Humans , SleepABSTRACT
Locally advanced or metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma no longer amenable to surgical resection or primary radiation therapy requires an alternative approach to treatment. Until 2018, management consisted of limited systemic chemotherapies, which carried marginal clinical benefit. The introduction of immunotherapy with anti-PD-1 antibodies resulted in alternative treatment options for advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma with substantial antitumor activity, durable response and acceptable safety profile. The field of immunotherapeutics continues to expand with adjuvant, neoadjuvant and intralesional studies currently in progress. Herein, the authors discuss their approach for the treatment of advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma from the perspective of a Mohs surgeon and a dermatologic oncologist.
Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Squamous Cell/diagnosis , Carcinoma, Squamous Cell/therapy , Biomarkers, Tumor , Carcinoma, Squamous Cell/etiology , Clinical Decision-Making , Clinical Trials as Topic , Combined Modality Therapy , Dermatology/methods , Dermatology/standards , Disease Management , Humans , Medical Oncology/methods , Medical Oncology/standards , Mohs Surgery/adverse effects , Mohs Surgery/methods , Mohs Surgery/standards , Molecular Targeted Therapy , Neoplasm Metastasis , Neoplasm Staging , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on dermatology practice cannot be overstated. At its peak, the pandemic resulted in the temporary closure of ambulatory sites as resources were reallocated towards pandemic response efforts. Many outpatient clinics have since reopened and are beginning to experience a semblance of pre-pandemic routine, albeit with restrictions in place. We provide an overview of how COVID-19 has affected dermatology practice globally beginning with the rise of teledermatology. A summary of expert recommendations that shape the "new normal" in various domains of dermatology practice, namely, dermatology consultation, procedural dermatology, and phototherapy, is also provided.
Subject(s)
Ambulatory Care Facilities/trends , Dermatology/standards , Primary Health Care/trends , Skin Diseases/therapy , Telemedicine/trends , COVID-19/epidemiology , Dermatology/trends , Health Services Accessibility/trends , Humans , Office Visits/trends , Skin Diseases/epidemiologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Dermatologists specialize in treating conditions of the skin, hair, and nails; however, it is our experience that the field of nail diseases is the least discussed facet of dermatology. Even less acknowledged is the complexity of nail procedures and how best to accurately code for these procedures. OBJECTIVE: To convene a panel of experts in nail disease to reach consensus on the most accurate and appropriate Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes associated with the most commonly performed nail procedures. METHODS: A questionnaire including 9 of the most commonly performed nail procedures and potential CPT codes was sent to experts in the treatment of nail disease, defined as those clinicians running a nail subspecialty clinic and performing nail procedures with regularity. A conference call was convened to discuss survey results. RESULTS: Unanimous consensus was reached on the appropriate CPT codes associated with all discussed procedures. LIMITATIONS: Although this article details the most commonly performed nail procedures, many were excluded and billing for these procedures continues to be largely subjective. This article is meant to serve as a guide for clinicians but should not be impervious to interpretation in specific clinical situations. CONCLUSION: Billing of nail procedures remains a practice gap within our field. The authors hope that the expert consensus on the most appropriate CPT codes associated with commonly performed nail procedures will aid clinicians as they diagnose and treat disorders of the nail unit and encourage accurate and complete billing practices.
