The Social and Home Environment: Impacts of Determinants of Health on Atopic Dermatitis, Pathways Toward Solutions, and Unique Considerations for Rural and Remote North American Indigenous Populations.

Disparities in environmental and social determinants of health (DOH) are associated with morbidity in atopic dermatitis (AD). The socioecological model (SEM) is a framework that can be applied to better understand how such DOH impacts patients with AD. We include a case scenario of a remote Indigenous patient reflective of real-world situations of living with AD and examine relevant impact, gaps in knowledge, and further research needs. This review highlights a variety of social and environmental exposures as important DOH which must be addressed to achieve optimal management in AD. The "rainbow model" is a modified framework to help illustrate how complex environmental and social forces impact both AD presentation and therapeutic success. However, practical applications and outcome metrics for health promotion are limited. An inter- and transdisciplinary approach is paramount to address the complex challenges associated with AD care, as well as multistakeholder approach integrating culturally-competent equitable health frameworks. This review underscores the importance of expanding the focus of AD management beyond basic science and clinical trials to recognize and address health disparities and to promote optimal health and well-being in patients with AD, and contributes a working approach to mapping the complex interventions and patient-oriented research needed using a focus on remote North American Indigenous patients affected by AD.

Treatment of Lentigines: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Treatments for solar lentigines include topical and physical therapies, including chemical peels, lasers, intense pulsed light, and cryotherapy. A direct comparison of treatment methods and their efficacy is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To compare treatment efficacy and adverse events for different treatment modalities for lentigines. METHODS: Cochrane, MEDLINE, and Embase databases were searched on August 25, 2021. Studies were included if they met our predetermined population, intervention, comparator, outcomes, study design framework. Results are presented in narrative form. RESULTS: Forty-eight articles met the inclusion criteria, representing a total of 1,763 patients. Overall, combination-based treatments showed the greatest frequency of cases with complete response (65%, n = 299/458), followed by laser-based treatments (43%, n = 395/910), topical retinoids (21%, n = 12/57), cryotherapy (15%, n = 25/169), and peels (6%, n = 8/125). Adverse events occurred most commonly while using topical retinoids (82%, n = 23/28), followed by combination-based treatments (39%, n = 184/466), cryotherapy (33%, n = 47/144), laser-based treatments (23%, n = 173/738), and peels (19%, n = 21/110). CONCLUSION: Despite heterogeneity of included study designs, patient populations, treatment regimens, and outcome measures, our results suggest that combination-based treatments and laser-based treatments were the most efficacious treatment modalities. Although cryotherapy was previously considered first-line, our results show that it has substantially lower pooled response rates compared with other treatment modalities.

Cannabis dosing and administration for sleep: a systematic review.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: As cannabis is increasingly used to treat sleep disorders, we performed a systematic review to examine the effects of cannabis on sleep and to guide cannabis prescribers in their recommendations to patients, specifically focusing on dosing. METHODS: We searched EMBASE, Medline, and Web of Science and identified 4550 studies for screening. Five hundred sixty-eight studies were selected for full-text review and 31 were included for analysis. Study results were considered positive based on improvements in sleep architecture or subjective sleep quality. Bias in randomized controlled trials was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0. RESULTS: Sleep improvements were seen in 7 out of 19 randomized studies and in 7 out of 12 uncontrolled trials. There were no significant differences between the effects of tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol. Cannabis showed most promise at improving sleep in patients with pain-related disorders, as compared to those with neurologic, psychiatric, or sleep disorders, and showed no significant effects on healthy participants' sleep. While subjective improvements in sleep quality were often observed, diagnostic testing showed no improvements in sleep architecture. Adverse events included headaches, sedation, and dizziness, and occurred more frequently at higher doses, though no serious adverse events were observed. CONCLUSION: High-quality evidence to support cannabis use for sleep remains limited. Heterogeneity in cannabis types, doses, timing of administration, and sleep outcome measures limit the ability to make specific dosing recommendations.