Beliefs and attitudes to sun tanning and knowledge of melanoma in the Irish population: a cross-sectional study

The incidence of melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancer continues to rise in Ireland. This study aimed to explore the tanning and sun-protection behaviour and attitudes, as well as awareness of signs of melanoma, of the Irish population. A cross-sectional study was performed in December 2020 via an online questionnaire. Respondents were recruited according to gender, age and geographical region. In total, 1043 respondents (49% female) completed the questionnaire (mean age 41 years;range 20-72). In total, 443 sunbathe when there is sunny weather in Ireland, with 245 wearing suncream less than half of the time. Thirty-eight per cent (n = 399) have used sunbeds in the last 12 months, despite the global COVID-19 pandemic. Almost half (49%) did not believe getting a sunburn was serious. Most (87%) were aware melanoma would have serious consequences for them and 91% believed it was important to protect themselves from getting melanoma. In total, 839 know that wearing sunscreen can prevent sunburn. However, the main reasons they do not apply it include just forgetting (n = 207), to get a tan (n = 177) and they just don't like putting it on (n = 359). The main reason for limiting sunbathing was to avoid wrinkles/ skin pigmentation (n = 356), followed by a fear of getting skin cancer (n = 334). The primary reason people sunbathed was to top up their supply of vitamin D (n = 336), which was closely followed by getting a tan. Eighty-five per cent reported feeling and looking better with a tan. Despite knowledge of the risks of sunburn, 208 respondents felt it was worth getting slightly sunburnt to get a tan. Most respondents were aware of sun-protection measures (n = 729), but 484 people were not confident about what to look for when performing a self-skin examination and only 410 know the signs of a melanoma. This study found that although the majority of people are aware of the risks of sunbathing, many are happy to take these risks in order to get a tan. Tans are still considered to be attractive by the majority of respondents. Although there are high levels of awareness regarding sun protection, knowledge regarding skin self-examination and the signs of melanoma is lacking. Our results indicate that health promotion interventions for skin cancer may need to focus on education regarding the signs of melanoma and consider strategies to alter the perceptions of the beneficial factors of tanning.

A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Trifarotene Plus Doxycycline for Severe Acne Vulgaris

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of trifarotene plus oral doxycycline in acne. METHOD(S): This was a randomized (2:1 ratio) 12-week, double-blind study of once-daily trifarotene cream 50microg/g plus enteric-coated doxycycline 120mg (T+D) versus trifarotene vehicle and doxycycline placebo (V+P). Patients were aged 12 years or older with severe facial acne (>=20 inflammatory lesions, 30 to 120 non-inflammatory lesions, and <=4 nodules). Efficacy outcomes included change from baseline in lesion counts and success (score of 0/1 with >=2 grade improvement) on investigator global assessment (IGA). Safety was assessed by adverse events and local tolerability. RESULT(S): The study enrolled 133 subjects in the T+D group and 69 subjects in the V+P group. The population was balanced, with an approximately even ratio of adolescent (12-17 years) and adult (>=18 years) subjects. The absolute change in lesion counts from baseline were: -69.1 T+D versus -48.1 V+P for total lesions, -29.4 T+D versus -19.5 V+P for inflammatory lesions, and -39.5 T+D versus -28.2 for non-inflammatory lesions (P<0.0001 for all). Success was achieved by 31.7 percent of subjects in the T+D group versus 15.8 percent in the V+P group (P=0.0107). The safety and tolerability profiles were comparable between the T+D and V+P arms. CONCLUSION(S): T+D was demonstrated to be safe and efficacious as a treatment option for patients with severe acne.Copyright © 2022 Matrix Medical Communications. All rights reserved.

A review of proton pump inhibitor photosensitivity in a tertiary referral photodiagnostic centre

Over the last few years, we have seen 11 patients presenting with proton pump inhibitor (PPI) photosensitivity at our tertiary referral photodiagnostic service and in our local dermatology department. Many adverse effects, including the discovery in 2020 of an almost twofold increased risk of severe COVID-19, of this widely used group of drugs have been noted (Lee SW, Ha EK, Yeniova AO et al. Severe clinical outcomes of COVID-19 associated with proton pump inhibitors: a nationwide cohort study with propensity score matching. Gut 2020;DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-322248). Although PPIinduced phototoxicity has been described, phototest results have not been reported and all clinical presentations have not been described. We aimed to identify all patients with PPI photosensitivity who presented to our unit. We sought to better understand their clinical characteristics, blood test results and photodiagnostic results. We retrospectively reviewed all case notes and investigation results of patients who were diagnosed with PPI photosensitivity. Eleven patients were identified to have been seen between 2014 and 2019. Two patients were male and nine were female. Mean duration of disease was 3 6 years and mean duration of PPI ingestion was 5 years. Five patients presented with a drug-induced lupus pattern [subcutaneous lupus erythematosus (SCLE;n = 2), papulosquamous SCLE and discoid (n = 1), tumid (n = 1) and acute cutaneous (n = 1)], four with drug-induced phototoxicity (sunburn-like) and two with a drug-induced solar urticaria relating to a lupus mechanism. The majority of patients reported symptoms on sun-exposed sites. The most common indication for PPI prescription was gastroesophageal reflux disease with omeprazole being the most commonly prescribed PPI. All patients underwent phototesting. Three patients were not on an PPI while undergoing phototesting and did not demonstrate photosensitivity. Of the remaining patients who underwent phototesting the most common finding was delayed sensitivity to ultraviolet A and to visible light. Druginduced photosensitivity can be a challenging diagnostic entity owing to the varied clinical presentation and heterogeneous time to onset. We present this case series to further help clinicians in recognizing the clinical and diagnostic pattern of photosensitivity present with PPI use.

A cross sectional examination of sunburn incidence in the context of race/ethnicity and skin type

Sun exposure is physiologically necessary, yet excessive amounts can be detrimental to skin, causing photoaging, sunburn, and skin cancer. Sunburn, presenting as delayed onset erythema, has been partially characterized for Caucasians, however the impact of excessive sun exposure has been less studied across race/ethnicity and skin tones. Herein, we present findings from a survey conducted across the United States, where sunburns were examined in a racially and ethnically diverse sample of 3597 participants spanning the Fitzpatrick skin phototype (FSP) scale. Individuals reporting sunburn were probed on the signs, severity, pain level, and anatomical location of their most recent sunburn and on the associated type of activity. Over the 8-month evaluation period (January-August 2020), sunburns were self-reported at rates generally consistent with those reported annually pre-COVID, with 39% Caucasian, 20% Asian, 12% African American and 32% Latino respondents reporting at least one sunburn. While average sunburn incidence among African American is low, a closer look reveals that African Americans with lighter skin tones (FSPs I-II) report higher sunburn rates (25.5%, n = 12), thus highlighting that sunburn risk does not depend on race/ethnicity alone. Furthermore, African Americans and Hispanics self-reported a significantly higher percentage of severe sunburns compared with Caucasians (27%, 20% and 11%, respectively) and African Americans, unlike Caucasians, indicated “peeling” as the top sign of their sunburn. This work provides a better understanding of the sunburn experience across race/ethnicity and skin tones and is a step toward enabling more personalized sun safety awareness and education.

NON-UREMIC CALCIPHYLAXIS SECONDARY TO ACUTE COVID-19

CASE: A 40-year-old white female with medical history significant for COVID-19 infection three months prior to presentation and previous spontaneous miscarriage presented with bilateral lower extremity lesions present for several weeks and described as “sunburn-like” with blistering. The lesions were initially located on her anterior thighs and spread to the lateral thighs and lower back. On presentation, she was found to have several distinct lower extremity lesions, with evidence of necrosis and eschar formation, along with blackened mottled skin. The lesions were extremely painful to the patient. Laboratory evaluation demonstrated hyponatremia, elevated ESR and CRP, with normal serum creatine and calcium. Calciphylaxis was confirmed with biopsy. The patient was treated with strict wound care to prevent infection and received sodium thiosulfate three times weekly and anticoagulation with apixaban due to concern for underlying hypercoagulability. An extensive work-up for underlying autoimmunity and hypercoagulability demonstrated presence of antiphospholipid antibodies with positive Cardiolipin IgM, lupus anticoagulant, and a homogenous ANA patern that showed a titer of 1:160. Her clinical status improved on extensive pain regimen and on follow-up one week later, the lesions were unchanged. IMPACT/DISCUSSION: Calciphylaxis is a known dermatologic finding that is typically diagnosed in the setting of End-stage Renal disease (ESRD). It presents with non-healing, painful skin ulcers that are at a high risk for infection and have poor healing. In the absence of ESRD, calciphylaxis is rare but has been reported in certain settings including hypercoagulable states and/ or autoimmune conditions. We present a case that has an absence of known etiologies for calciphylaxis and hypothesize that this is due to a hypercoagulable state caused by recent COVID-19 infection, or COVID-19 aggravating an underlying hypercoagulable state. This case offers an uncommon diagnosis with an even rarer presentation. Calciphylaxis must be confirmed with biopsy and is extremely debilitating and painful. In the setting of non-uremic calciphylaxis, prevention of infection and management of pain should be prioritized. Additionally, this case offers a platform to identifying COVID-19 as a risk factor for development of calciphylaxis in previously healthy individuals. CONCLUSION: The general internist should be aware of non-uremic calciphylaxis and also be concerned for hypercoagulable state induced from COVID-19. It is important to have accurate history-taking and consider delayed reactions, as in this case.

Risk Factors for Actinic Keratoses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objective: To integrate evidence and assess the risk factors associated with actinic keratosis (AK). Methods: Unrestricted searches were conducted on five electronic databases, with an end-date parameter of September 2021. We summarized the study characteristics and pooled the results from individual studies by using a random-effects model. The risk of bias was estimated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and the quality of evidence was estimated according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: Sixteen studies were included in final analysis, and we assessed the AK risk among a variety of risk factors. Overall, the male sex (odds ratio (OR): 2.51; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.94-3.25; P < 0.01), age >45 years (OR = 7.65, 95% CI: 2.95-19.86; P < 0.01), light Fitzpatrick skin phototype (OR = 2.32, 95% CI: 1.74-3.10; P < 0.01), light hair color (OR = 2.17, 95% CI: 1.40-3.36; P < 0.01), light eye color (OR = 1.67, 95% CI: 1.03-2.70; P = 0.04), freckles on face/arms (OR = 1.88, 95% CI: 1.37-2.58; P < 0.01), suffered positive history of other types of non-melanoma skin cancer (OR = 4.46, 95% CI: 2.71-7.33; P < 0.01), sunburns in childhood (OR = 2.33, 95% CI: 1.47-3.70; P < 0.01) and adulthood (OR = 1.50, 95% CI: 1.12-2.00; P < 0.01), severe sunburn (OR = 1.94, 95% CI: 1.62-2.31; P < 0.01), and chronic occupational and/or recreational sun exposure (OR = 3.22, 95% CI: 2.16-4.81; P < 0.01) increased the risk of AK. Moreover, sunscreen use (OR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.34-0.77; P < 0.01) and history of atopy reduced the risk of AK. Sensitivity analysis yielded consistent results. The included studies showed a high risk of bias. Conclusion: We confirm several well-known AK risk factors and their quantitative data, and summarized the uncommon risk factors and protective factors. Our results may inform on the design and implementation of AK screening and educational programs.

The Effects of Using the Sun Safe App on Sun Health Knowledge and Behaviors of Young Teenagers: Results of Pilot Intervention Studies

Background: A balanced approach toward sun exposure and protection is needed by young people. Excessive sun exposure increases their risk for skin cancers such as melanoma, whereas some exposure is necessary for vitamin D and healthy bones. We have developed a new iOS smartphone app—Sun Safe—through a co-design process, which aims to support healthy and balanced decision-making by young teenagers (aged 12-13 years). Objective: The aim of this study was to test the capacity of Sun Safe to improve sun health knowledge and behaviors of young teenagers in 3 pilot intervention studies completed in 2020. Methods: Young teenagers (aged 12-13 years;N=57) were recruited through the web or through a local school via an open-access website and given access to Sun Safe (29/57, 51%) or a placebo (SunDial) app (28/57, 49%). Participants completed sun health questionnaires and knowledge quizzes before and after the 6-week intervention (either on the web or in class) and rated the quality of the app they used via a survey. Results: Of the 57 participants, 51 (89%) participants (26, 51% for placebo arm and 25, 49% for the Sun Safe arm) completed these studies, with most (>50%) reporting that they used a smartphone to access their designated app either “once a fortnight” or “once/twice in total.” Improved sun health knowledge—particularly about the UV Index—was observed in participants who were given access to Sun Safe compared with those who used the placebo (−6.2 [percentage correct] difference in predicted means, 95% CI –12.4 to –0.03;P=.049;2-way ANOVA). Unexpectedly, there were significantly more sunburn events in the Sun Safe group (relative risk 1.7, 95% CI 1.1-1.8;P=.02;Fisher exact test), although no differences in time spent outdoors or sun-protective behaviors were reported. COVID-19 pandemic–related community-wide shutdowns during April 2020 (when schools were closed) reduced the time spent outdoors by >100 minutes per day (–105 minutes per day difference in predicted means, 95% CI –150 to –59 minutes per day;P=.002;paired 2-tailed Student t test). Sun Safe was well-rated by participants, particularly for information (mean 4.2, SD 0.6 out of 5). Conclusions: Access to the Sun Safe app increased sun health knowledge among young teenagers in these pilot intervention studies. Further investigations with larger sample sizes are required to confirm these observations and further test the effects of Sun Safe on sun-protective behaviors.

Real-Time UV Measurement With a Sun Protection System for Warning Young Adults About Sunburn: Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Melanoma is attributable to predisposing phenotypical factors, such as skin that easily sunburns and unprotected exposure to carcinogenic UV radiation. Reducing the proportion of young adults who get sunburned may reduce the incidence of melanoma, a deadly form of skin cancer. Advances in technology have enabled the delivery of real-time UV light exposure and content-relevant health interventions. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine the feasibility of young adults performing the following tasks daily: wearing a UV dosimeter, receiving text messages and real-time UV-B doses on their smartphone, and responding to daily web-based surveys about sunburn and sun protection. METHODS: Young adults aged 18-39 years (n=42) were recruited in the United States in June 2020 via social media. Participants received the UV Guard sun protection system, which consisted of a UV dosimeter and a smartphone app. During 3 consecutive periods, intervention intensity increased as follows: real-time UV-B dose; UV-B dose and daily behavioral facilitation text messages; and UV-B dose, goal setting, and daily text messages to support self-efficacy and self-regulation. Data were self-reported through daily web-based surveys for 28 days, and UV-B doses were transmitted to cloud-based storage. RESULTS: Patients' median age was 22 years (IQR 20, 29), and all patients had sun-sensitive skin. Sunburns were experienced during the study by fewer subjects (n=18) than those in the preceding 28 days (n=30). In July and August, the face was the most commonly sunburned area among 13 body locations; 52% (22/42) of sunburns occurred before the study and 45% (19/42) occurred during the study. The mean daily UV-B dose decreased during the 3 periods; however, this was not statistically significant. Young adults were most often exercising outdoors from 2 to 6 PM, walking from 10 AM to 6 PM, and relaxing from noon to 2 PM. Sunburn was most often experienced during exercise (odds ratio [OR] 5.65, 95% CI 1.60-6.10) and relaxation (OR 3.69, 95% CI 1.03-4.67) relative to those that did not exercise or relax in each category. The self-reported exit survey indicated that participants felt that they spent less time outdoors this summer compared to the last summer because of the COVID-19 pandemic and work. In addition, 38% (16/42) of the participants changed their use of sun protection based on their app-reported UV exposure, and 48% (20/42) shifted the time they went outside to periods with less-intense UV exposure. A total of 79% (33/42) of the participants were willing to continue using the UV Guard system outside of a research setting. CONCLUSIONS: In this proof-of-concept research, young adults demonstrated that they used the UV Guard system; however, optimization was needed. Although some sun protection behaviors changed, sunburn was not prevented in all participants, especially during outdoor exercise. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03344796; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03344796.