Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
J Am Acad Dermatol ; 85(5): 1274-1284, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1531500


Dermatologists diagnose and treat many immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID). Understanding the inherent immune dysregulation of these diseases as well as the additional disruption that comes as a result of IMID treatments has been important during the COVID-19 pandemic. With vaccines becoming widely available, dermatologists need to be familiar with the risks and benefits of vaccination in these patients, particularly those taking biologics, in order to have informed discussions with their patients. In this review, we present the current evidence related to COVID-19 vaccine safety and efficacy in patients with IMID and review existing recommendations for vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. Given the current evidence, there is minimal concern that these patients are at any greater risk of harm from COVID-19 vaccination compared to healthy controls. For most, the benefit of avoiding severe COVID-19 through vaccination will outweigh the theoretical risk of these vaccines. A question that is still outstanding is whether patients on biologics will generate a sufficient immune response to the vaccine, which may be dependent on the specific biologic therapy and indication being treated. This underscores the importance of following patients with IMID after vaccination to determine the safety, efficacy, and duration of the vaccine in this population.

COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , COVID-19/prevention & control , Dermatitis/immunology , Immunocompromised Host , Biological Products/therapeutic use , Contraindications, Drug , Dermatitis/drug therapy , Humans , Immunologic Factors/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2
Clin Cancer Res ; 27(10): 2678-2697, 2021 05 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1015729


Five years ago, the Melanoma Research Foundation (MRF) conducted an assessment of the challenges and opportunities facing the melanoma research community and patients with melanoma. Since then, remarkable progress has been made on both the basic and clinical research fronts. However, the incidence, recurrence, and death rates for melanoma remain unacceptably high and significant challenges remain. Hence, the MRF Scientific Advisory Council and Breakthrough Consortium, a group that includes clinicians and scientists, reconvened to facilitate intensive discussions on thematic areas essential to melanoma researchers and patients alike, prevention, detection, diagnosis, metastatic dormancy and progression, response and resistance to targeted and immune-based therapy, and the clinical consequences of COVID-19 for patients with melanoma and providers. These extensive discussions helped to crystalize our understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing the broader melanoma community today. In this report, we discuss the progress made since the last MRF assessment, comment on what remains to be overcome, and offer recommendations for the best path forward.

COVID-19/prevention & control , Medical Oncology/methods , Melanoma/therapy , Practice Guidelines as Topic , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Skin Neoplasms/therapy , Biomedical Research/methods , Biomedical Research/trends , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/virology , Humans , Medical Oncology/organization & administration , Medical Oncology/trends , Melanoma/diagnosis , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Skin Neoplasms/diagnosis
Telemed J E Health ; 27(7): 771-777, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-872935


Background: Teledermatology offers an opportunity to continually deliver care during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Objective: To provide quantitative data about the use of teledermatology. Methods: Retrospective analysis of teledermatology consultations was performed from March 16 to May 1, 2020. The number/type of encounters, differences in diagnoses, and prescriptions between asynchronous and synchronous teledermatology visits were analyzed. Results: A total of 951 visits (36.2%) were asynchronous whereas 1,672 visits (63.8%) were synchronous. Only 131 (<5%) visits required an acute in-person follow-up. The diagnosis of acne was more frequent with asynchronous visits (p < 0.002, Bonferroni corrected). Antibiotics and nonretinoid acne medications were prescribed more with asynchronous visits, whereas immunomodulators and biologics were more commonly prescribed with synchronous visits (p < 0.02, Bonferroni corrected). Providers at our institution were split on preferred mode (54.2% synchronous, 45.8% asynchronous); however, synchronous visits were preferred for complex medical dermatology patients and return patients (p < 0.05). Limitations: This study is limited by being a single-center study. Conclusions: Asynchronous teledermatology was used more for acne management, whereas synchronous teledermatology was preferable to providers for complex medical dermatology. Postanalysis of the data collected led us to institute a hybridization of our asynchronous and synchronous teledermatology.

COVID-19 , Dermatology , Skin Diseases , Telemedicine , Delivery of Health Care , Humans , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2