ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Approximately one-third of psoriasis cases present in the first two decades of life. Many psoriasis treatments are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for adults, including topical agents, systemic non-biologic agents, and systemic biologic agents. Only a handful of psoriasis treatments are FDA approved for children. Given the constantly evolving landscape of pediatric psoriasis management, our aim is to characterize how children with psoriasis are treated in the U.S. METHODS: Data from the 2003-2016 and 2018 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) were used to evaluate patient demographics and treatment patterns for visits of children with psoriasis. Visits were stratified by those with a diagnosis of psoriasis and those for children with a diagnosis of psoriasis. Separate analyses for visits of children with a diagnosis of psoriasis were performed, including for sex, race, ethnicity, age, specialty of provider seen, and medications prescribed. RESULTS: Pediatric psoriasis visits accounted for 3.3% of visits with psoriasis from 2003 to 2016 and in 2018; about one-third of those visits were to primary care providers. Children with psoriasis were prescribed a variety of topical and systemic medications, of which the most frequently prescribed treatments were topical tacrolimus, followed by topical clobetasol and topical betamethasone dipropionate or betamethasone valerate. Etanercept was the only biologic prescribed to children. At least 59% of the visits for children with a diagnosis of psoriasis included a topical prescription while at least 5.3% of the visits included a systemic prescription. CONCLUSION: Use of off-label treatments was common for pediatric psoriasis. Most children with psoriasis were treated with topicals, of which tacrolimus, an unapproved treatment, was the most common. The frequent use of tacrolimus could indicate an avoidance of corticosteroids in children.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Actinic keratosis (AK) is a pre-cancerous skin condition caused by sun exposure. Number bias, a phenomenon that occurs when meaning other than numerical value is associated with numbers, may influence the reporting of AK removal. The present study aims to determine if number bias is affecting healthcare providers' documentation of patient-provider encounters. METHODS: A single-center retrospective chart review of 1415 patients' charts was conducted at the University of Cincinnati Medical Center. To determine if there was a significant difference between even and odd-numbered AK removals reported, an exact binomial test was used. The frequency of removals per encounter was fitted to a zero-truncated negative binomial distribution to predict the number of removals expected. All data were analyzed with RStudio. RESULTS: There were 741 odd and 549 even encounters. Odd removals were reported at a significantly greater frequency than even p < 0.001. Age may be contributing to the observed number bias (p < 0.001). One, two, and eight were reportedly removed more frequently, while nine, 13, and 14 were reportedly removed less frequently than expected, respectively. CONCLUSION: Number bias may be affecting clinicians' documentation of AK removal and should be investigated in other clinical settings.
