Rural Health Disparities in Skin Cancer Amplified Among Skin of Color.

Limited studies explore the role social determinants of health have on urban-rural health disparities, particularly for Skin of Color. To further evaluate this relationship, a cross-sectional study was conducted on data from five states using the 2018 to 2021 Behavior Risk Factor Surveillance Survey, a national state-run health survey. Prevalence of skin cancer history and urban/rural status were evaluated across these social determinants of health: sex, age, race, insurance status, number of personal healthcare providers, and household income. Overall, rural counterparts were significantly more likely to have a positive skin cancer history across most social determinants of health. Rural populations had a higher prevalence of skin cancer history across all races (P<.001). Rural non-Hispanic Whites had greater odds than their urban counterparts (OR=1.40; 95% CI 1.34 - 1.46). The odds were approximately twice as high for rural Black (OR=1.74; 95% CI 1.14 - 2.65), Hispanic (OR=2.31; 95% CI 1.56 - 3.41), and Other Race, non-Hispanic (OR=1.99; 95% CI 1.51 - 2.61), and twenty times higher for Asians (OR=20.46; 95% CI 8.63 - 48.54), although no significant difference was seen for American Indian/Alaskan Native (OR=1.5; 95% CI 0.99 - 2.28). However, when household income exceeded $100,000 no significant difference in prevalence or odds was seen between urban and rural settings. Despite increasing awareness of metropolitan-based health inequity, urban-rural disparities in skin cancer prevalence continue to persist and may be magnified by social determinants such as income and race. J Drugs Dermatol. 2024;23(6):480-484.    doi:10.36849/JDD.8094.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor associated epidermal necrosis, beyond SJS and TEN: a review of 98 cases.

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapies carry the risk of major immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Among the most severe irAEs is epidermal necrosis that may clinically mimic Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) and toxic epidermal necrosis (TEN). The aim of this study was to provide a summary of the clinical and histological features of ICI-associated epidermal necrosis, with a special focus on factors associated with fatal outcomes in cases of extensive disease. A total of 98 cases, 2 new cases and 96 reported on PubMed and in the literature, of ICI-associated epidermal necrosis were assessed. Development of epidermal necrosis occurred between 1 day and 3 years after starting ICI therapy, with an average onset of 13.8 weeks for patients with limited (< 30% BSA) and 11.3 weeks for those with extensive (≥ 30% BSA) involvement, and a median onset of 5.8 weeks and 4 weeks respectively. A preceding rash was seen in 52 cases and was more common in extensive cases. Mucosal involvement was only reported in 65% of extensive cases but was significantly associated with fatal reactions. Co-administration of cytotoxic chemotherapy was associated with more extensive disease. Recovery was observed in 96% and 65% of those with limited and extensive involvement respectively and no specific therapy was associated with improved survival. Young age was significantly associated with poor outcomes in extensive disease, the average age of surviving patients was 64.5 years old versus 55.1 years old for deceased patients, p < 0.01. Both superficial perivascular and interface/lichenoid inflammatory infiltrates were commonly seen. These findings suggest that ICI-associated epidermal necrosis should be considered a distinct clinical entity from drug-induced SJS/TEN.

Assessing Time of Onset for Interstitial Lung Disease in Anti-MDA5 Antibody-Positive Dermatomyositis.

This cohort study seeks to describe the time interval between interstitial lung disease and anti­melanoma differentiation-associated gene 5 antibody-positive dermatomyositis diagnoses.

The distribution of industry payments among pediatric dermatologists from 2015 to 2021.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: To understand the landscape of industry payments to pediatric dermatologists to foster transparency and identify potential disparities in funding. METHODS: Using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments database, a national cross-sectional study was performed examining payments to pediatric dermatologists from 2015 to 2021. RESULTS: Of the 147 pediatric dermatologists who received industry funding, 35 were male and 112 were female. $9 million in payments was amassed, with 10% of pediatric dermatologists accounting for 94% of total industry payments. Consulting was the most common service, with Pfizer Inc., Amgen Inc., and Regeneron Healthcare Solutions Inc. representing the top three companies. Mean payment was $143,836 for males and $35,943 for females (p < .001). Eight female and seven male pediatric dermatologists received payments in the top 10th percentile, with different average payment in this subgroup (females $447,588 vs. males $698,746, p = .03). 11 states did not have a pediatric dermatologist receiving industry payments, while California (19) and Texas (12) had the most. CONCLUSIONS: There are approximately 400 board-certified pediatric dermatologists in the United States and fewer than 40% are receiving monetary compensation from private industry. A fraction of physicians accounted for a majority of total industry payments and industry payments to male pediatric dermatologists were higher despite nearly triple the number of female pediatric dermatologists. With the rise of valuable partnerships between healthcare and industry in modern medicine, the implications of geographic, gender, and financial disparity of industry payments in pediatric dermatology are worthy of further study.

Website mission statements of dermatology residency programs: a cross-sectional study.

Recent calls for increased transparency from dermatology residency programs have revealed important opportunities, particularly including information on program websites. One piece of information that may especially benefit applicants assessing potential training programs is the program's mission statement. From August 9, 2022, to August 21, 2022, the websites of all ACGME-accredited dermatology residencies were examined to investigate the use and content of mission statements. Statements were categorized based on inclusion of mission, vision, virtue/value, aims, and goals. A total of 133 out of 143 dermatology programs (93.0%) were included. Overall, 46.15% of programs used at least one of the five mission statement categories on their websites, while 53.85% used none. Programs used the category "mission" (39.85%) most, and "vision" (3.01%) least. There was overlap in word choice across categories. The word "care" was among the top four words used in every category. Other words to appear frequently across multiple categories included "dermatology" (4/5), "residents" (3/5), "knowledge" (2/5), and "provide" (2/5). Other top words included "clinical" in the mission category, "advanced" and "leaders" in the vision category, "excellence" and "diversity" in the value/virtue category, and "patient" and "professional" in the objective category. Explicitly stating residency program missions may not only help programs plan more effectively, but also help applicants who may be undecided about which programs best align with their career goals.

Website transparency of dermatology residency programs: a cross-sectional study.

With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the dermatology residency application process rapidly transitioned in a number of dimensions. As in-person activities were canceled and USMLE Step 1 has become pass/fail, there have been several proposed changes to enhance the process, including a push for increased transparency. Given than most dermatology applicants use program websites to learn more about potential residency programs, we conducted a cross-sectional study to quantify how transparent dermatology residency program website were, relative to published guidelines. From February 11, 2022, to February 25, 2022, we examined the available websites of all ACGME-accredited dermatology residencies to determine transparency regarding information dissemination, selection criteria, interview process, program priorities, and program requirements and opportunities. 136 out of 143 dermatology programs (95.1%) were included. Overall, programs were most transparent with program requirements and opportunities (87.25%). This included information on hospital locations, subspecialty clinics, and rotation/call/didactic schedules. Programs were least transparent with sharing their selection and/or exclusion criteria (31.13%) and varied in how much information they shared about the interview process (39.34%), as well as program priorities (64.56%). Opportunities remain for dermatology programs to improve website transparency and aid applicants in this difficult-to-navigate process. These results identify real transparency gaps, with several potential foci for improvement. Our main study limitation is its focus on a single time-period; to ensure that this information remains up to date, ongoing efforts to periodically resurvey content changes is warranted. Our findings provide an overview of programs' successes and remaining opportunities to follow published transparency guidelines; overall, these findings may guide individual program directors aiming to improve the transparency of their dermatology residency programs and ultimately benefit our future workforce.