Effects of Low-Level Light Therapy on Resting-State Connectivity Following Moderate Traumatic Brain Injury: Secondary Analyses of a Double-blinded Placebo-controlled Study.

Background Low-level light therapy (LLLT) has been shown to modulate recovery in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). However, the impact of LLLT on the functional connectivity of the brain when at rest has not been well studied. Purpose To use functional MRI to assess the effect of LLLT on whole-brain resting-state functional connectivity (RSFC) in patients with moderate TBI at acute (within 1 week), subacute (2-3 weeks), and late-subacute (3 months) recovery phases. Materials and Methods This is a secondary analysis of a prospective single-site double-blinded sham-controlled study conducted in patients presenting to the emergency department with moderate TBI from November 2015 to July 2019. Participants were randomized for LLLT and sham treatment. The primary outcome of the study was to assess structural connectivity, and RSFC was collected as the secondary outcome. MRI was used to measure RSFC in 82 brain regions in participants during the three recovery phases. Healthy individuals who did not receive treatment were imaged at a single time point to provide control values. The Pearson correlation coefficient was estimated to assess the connectivity strength for each brain region pair, and estimates of the differences in Fisher z-transformed correlation coefficients (hereafter, z differences) were compared between recovery phases and treatment groups using a linear mixed-effects regression model. These analyses were repeated for all brain region pairs. False discovery rate (FDR)-adjusted P values were computed to account for multiple comparisons. Quantile mixed-effects models were constructed to quantify the association between the Rivermead Postconcussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ) score, recovery phase, and treatment group. Results RSFC was evaluated in 17 LLLT-treated participants (median age, 50 years [IQR, 25-67 years]; nine female), 21 sham-treated participants (median age, 50 years [IQR, 43-59 years]; 11 female), and 23 healthy control participants (median age, 42 years [IQR, 32-54 years]; 13 male). Seven brain region pairs exhibited a greater change in connectivity in LLLT-treated participants than in sham-treated participants between the acute and subacute phases (range of z differences, 0.37 [95% CI: 0.20, 0.53] to 0.45 [95% CI: 0.24, 0.67]; FDR-adjusted P value range, .010-.047). Thirteen different brain region pairs showed an increase in connectivity in sham-treated participants between the subacute and late-subacute phases (range of z differences, 0.17 [95% CI: 0.09, 0.25] to 0.26 [95% CI: 0.14, 0.39]; FDR-adjusted P value range, .020-.047). There was no evidence of a difference in clinical outcomes between LLLT-treated and sham-treated participants (range of differences in medians, -3.54 [95% CI: -12.65, 5.57] to -0.59 [95% CI: -7.31, 8.49]; P value range, .44-.99), as measured according to RPQ scores. Conclusion Despite the small sample size, the change in RSFC from the acute to subacute phases of recovery was greater in LLLT-treated than sham-treated participants, suggesting that acute-phase LLLT may have an impact on resting-state neuronal circuits in the early recovery phase of moderate TBI. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02233413 © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article.

Rosacea Core Domain Set for Clinical Trials and Practice: A Consensus Statement.

Importance: Inconsistent reporting of outcomes in clinical trials of rosacea is impeding and likely preventing accurate data pooling and meta-analyses. There is a need for standardization of outcomes assessed during intervention trials of rosacea. Objective: To develop a rosacea core outcome set (COS) based on key domains that are globally relevant and applicable to all demographic groups to be used as a minimum list of outcomes for reporting by rosacea clinical trials, and when appropriate, in clinical practice. Evidence Review: A systematic literature review of rosacea clinical trials was conducted. Discrete outcomes were extracted and augmented through discussions and focus groups with key stakeholders. The initial list of 192 outcomes was refined to identify 50 unique outcomes that were rated through the Delphi process Round 1 by 88 panelists (63 physicians from 17 countries and 25 patients with rosacea in the US) on 9-point Likert scale. Based on feedback, an additional 11 outcomes were added in Round 2. Outcomes deemed to be critical for inclusion (rated 7-9 by ≥70% of both groups) were discussed in consensus meetings. The outcomes deemed to be most important for inclusion by at least 85% of the participants were incorporated into the final core domain set. Findings: The Delphi process and consensus-building meetings identified a final core set of 8 domains for rosacea clinical trials: ocular signs and symptoms; skin signs of disease; skin symptoms; overall severity; patient satisfaction; quality of life; degree of improvement; and presence and severity of treatment-related adverse events. Recommendations were also made for application in the clinical setting. Conclusions and Relevance: This core domain set for rosacea research is now available; its adoption by researchers may improve the usefulness of future trials of rosacea therapies by enabling meta-analyses and other comparisons across studies. This core domain set may also be useful in clinical practice.

An antimicrobial blue light device to manage infection at the skin-implant interface of percutaneous osseointegrated implants.

Antimicrobial blue light (aBL) is an attractive option for managing biofilm burden at the skin-implant interface of percutaneous osseointegrated (OI) implants. However, marketed aBL devices have both structural and optical limitations that prevent them from being used in an OI implant environment. They must be handheld, preventing even irradiation of the entire skin-implant interface, and the devices do not offer sufficient optical power outputs required to kill biofilms. We present the developmental process of a unique aBL device that overcomes these limitations. Four prototypes are detailed, each being a progressive improvement from the previous iteration as we move from proof-of-concept to in vivo application. Design features focused on a cooling system, LED orientation, modularity, and "sheep-proofing". The final prototype was tested in an in vivo OI implant sheep model, demonstrating that it was structurally and optically adequate to address biofilm burdens at the skin-implant of percutaneous OI implants. The device made it possible to test aBL in the unique OI implant environment and compare its efficacy to clinical antibiotics-data which had not before been achievable. It has provided insight into whether or not continued pursual of light therapy research for OI implants, and other percutaneous devices, is worthwhile. However, the device has drawbacks concerning the cooling system, complexity, and size if it is to be translated to human clinical trials. Overall, we successfully developed a device to test aBL therapy for patients with OI implants and helped progress understanding in the field of infection management strategies.

Antimicrobial blue light as a biofilm management therapy at the skin-implant interface in an ex vivo percutaneous osseointegrated implant model.

Biofilm contamination is often present at the skin-implant interface of transfemoral osseointegrated implants leading to frequent infection, irritation, and discomfort. New biofilm management regimens are needed as the current standard of washing the site with soap and water is inadequate to manage infection rates. We investigated the potential of antimicrobial blue light, which has reduced risk of resistance development and broad antimicrobial mechanisms. Our lab developed an antimicrobial blue light (aBL) device uniquely designed for an ex vivo system based on an established ovine osseointegrated (OI) implant model with Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 6538 biofilms as initial inocula. Samples were irradiated with aBL or washed for three consecutive days after which they were quantified. Colony-forming unit (CFU) counts were compared with a control group (bacterial inocula without treatment). After 1 day, aBL administered as a single 6 h dose or two 1 h doses spaced 6 h apart both reduced the CFU count by 1.63 log10 ± 0.02 CFU. Over 3 days of treatment, a positive aBL trend was observed with a maximum reduction of ~2.7 log10 CFU following 6 h of treatment, indicating a relation between multiple days of irradiation and greater CFU reductions. aBL was more effective at reducing the biofilm burden at the skin-implant interface compared with the wash group, demonstrating the potential of aBL as a biofilm management option.

Evaluation of the fragility of pivotal trials used to support US Food and Drug Administration approval for plaque psoriasis.

BACKGROUND: Over the last 5 years, there has been a rapid growth in the number of clinical trials used to support a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for systemic therapies with labeled indications for plaque psoriasis. OBJECTIVE: We aim to evaluate the fragility of clinical trial data used to support FDA approval of therapies for psoriasis. METHODS: We reviewed the primary endpoints of the pivotal trials of all systemic medications with a labeled indication for plaque psoriasis available from Drugs@FDA. RESULTS: Sixty-nine clinical trial primary endpoints met inclusion criteria and were assessed for robustness, yielding a median fragility index of 72 and a median fragility quotient of 0.19. LIMITATIONS: Efficacy and statistical analysis data for several approved medications were not available on the product label or on Drugs@FDA. CONCLUSIONS: When compared with randomized controlled trials for FDA approval across various diseases, pivotal trials in psoriasis appear quite robust to changes in outcomes.

Effect of Transcranial Low-Level Light Therapy vs Sham Therapy Among Patients With Moderate Traumatic Brain Injury: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Preclinical studies have shown that transcranial near-infrared low-level light therapy (LLLT) administered after traumatic brain injury (TBI) confers a neuroprotective response. Objectives: To assess the feasibility and safety of LLLT administered acutely after a moderate TBI and the neuroreactivity to LLLT through quantitative magnetic resonance imaging metrics and neurocognitive assessment. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized, single-center, prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel-group trial was conducted from November 27, 2015, through July 11, 2019. Participants included 68 men and women with acute, nonpenetrating, moderate TBI who were randomized to LLLT or sham treatment. Analysis of the response-evaluable population was conducted. Interventions: Transcranial LLLT was administered using a custom-built helmet starting within 72 hours after the trauma. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed in the acute (within 72 hours), early subacute (2-3 weeks), and late subacute (approximately 3 months) stages of recovery. Clinical assessments were performed concomitantly and at 6 months via the Rivermead Post-Concussion Questionnaire (RPQ), a 16-item questionnaire with each item assessed on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (no problem) to 4 (severe problem). Main Outcomes and Measures: The number of participants to successfully and safely complete LLLT without any adverse events within the first 7 days after the therapy was the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcomes were the differential effect of LLLT on MR brain diffusion parameters and RPQ scores compared with the sham group. Results: Of the 68 patients who were randomized (33 to LLLT and 35 to sham therapy), 28 completed at least 1 LLLT session. No adverse events referable to LLLT were reported. Forty-three patients (22 men [51.2%]; mean [SD] age, 50.49 [17.44] years]) completed the study with at least 1 magnetic resonance imaging scan: 19 individuals in the LLLT group and 24 in the sham treatment group. Radial diffusivity (RD), mean diffusivity (MD), and fractional anisotropy (FA) showed significant time and treatment interaction at 3-month time point (RD: 0.013; 95% CI, 0.006 to 0.019; P < .001; MD: 0.008; 95% CI, 0.001 to 0.015; P = .03; FA: -0.018; 95% CI, -0.026 to -0.010; P < .001).The LLLT group had lower RPQ scores, but this effect did not reach statistical significance (time effect P = .39, treatment effect P = .61, and time × treatment effect P = .91). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, LLLT was feasible in all patients and did not exhibit any adverse events. Light therapy altered multiple diffusion tensor parameters in a statistically significant manner in the late subacute stage. This study provides the first human evidence to date that light therapy engages neural substrates that play a role in the pathophysiologic factors of moderate TBI and also suggests diffusion imaging as the biomarker of therapeutic response. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02233413.

Nonphysician Practice of Cosmetic Dermatology: A Patient and Physician Perspective of Outcomes and Adverse Events.

BACKGROUND: Nonphysicians are expanding practice into specialty medicine. There are limited studies on patient and physician perspectives as well as safety outcomes regarding the nonphysician practice of cosmetic procedures. OBJECTIVE: To identify the patient (consumer) and physician perspective on preferences, adverse events, and outcomes following cosmetic dermatology procedures performed by physicians and nonphysicians. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Internet-based surveys were administered to consumers of cosmetic procedures and physician members of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. Descriptive statistics and graphical methods were used to assess responses. Comparisons between groups were based on contingency chi-square analyses and Fisher exact tests. RESULTS: Two thousand one hundred sixteen commenced the patient survey with 401 having had a cosmetic procedure performed. Fifty adverse events were reported. A higher number of burns and discoloration occurred in the nonphysician-treated group and took place more often in a spa setting. Individuals seeing nonphysicians cited motivating factors such as level of licensure (type) of nonphysician, a referral from a friend, price, and the location of the practitioner. Improper technique by the nonphysician was cited most as a reason for the adverse event. Both groups agree that more regulation should be placed on who can perform cosmetic procedures. Recall bias associated with survey data. CONCLUSION: Patients treated by nonphysicians experienced more burns and discoloration compared with physicians, and they are encountering these nonphysicians outside a traditional medical office, which are important from a patient safety and regulatory standpoint. Motivating factors for patients seeking cosmetic procedures may also factor into the choice of provider. KEY POINTS: Both patients and physicians think more regulation should be in place on who can perform cosmetic procedures. More adverse events such as burns and discolorations occurred with patients seeing nonphysicians compared with those seeing physicians. In addition, for those seeing nonphysicians, a majority of these encounters took place in spa settings. Patient safety is of utmost concern when it comes to elective cosmetic medical procedures. More adverse events and encounters occurring outside traditional medical settings when nonphysicians performed these procedures call into question the required training and oversight needed for such procedures.

The Medical and Psychosocial Associations of Alopecia: Recognizing Hair Loss as More Than a Cosmetic Concern.

Alopecia encompasses a broad range of hair loss disorders, generally categorized into scarring and non-scarring forms. Depending on the specific pathogenesis of hair loss and geographic location, a number of psychiatric and medical comorbidities, including but not limited to thyroid disease, lupus erythematosus, diabetes mellitus, atopic dermatitis, sinusitis, coronary artery disease, anxiety, depression, and suicidality, have been identified in association with alopecia. In addition to the numerous associated comorbid conditions, patients with alopecia report decreased quality-of-life measures across symptomatic, functional, and global domains. While alopecia can affect patients of all ages, genders, and ethnicities, hair loss may more significantly impact women as hair represents an essential element of femininity, fertility, and female attractiveness in society. Individuals of lower socioeconomic status may also face health disparities in the context of alopecia as a majority of hair loss treatments are considered cosmetic in nature and accordingly are not covered by third-party insurance providers. Although traditionally thought of as a merely aesthetic concern, alopecia encompasses a significant burden of disease with well-defined comorbid associations and genuine psychosocial implications, and thus should be assessed and managed within a proper medical paradigm.

Physician-Industry Collaboration: Organizational Considerations for the Future of Innovation and Growth in Dermatology.

The U.S. medical environment continues to evolve with issues from Privacy to EMR, Insurance regulations, Physician Access and Healthcare Reform, and MACRA (Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act) on the discussion table. Not since the advent of Medicare and Medicaid in the mid 1960's, have we seen such widespread changes in the medical healthcare environment (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services). Physicians, industry, patients and consumers are affected by the changes. These four groups have historically worked as separate entities, but are now key stakeholders in the future of dermatology. As stakeholders collaborating in building a future together, the dermatologists/physicians will help to ensure and preserve the quality of patient care and best patient outcomes. In 2 Executive Forum meetings February 21-23, 2014 and June 3-4, 2016 the leaders from the Women's Dermatologic Society and Industry, explored several important areas, six of which will be reviewed in this article 1) A five-year outlook of Dermatology and Medicine; 2) The New Practice Environment; 3) Access of Industry to Dermatologists and Trainees; 4) Doing Things Differently; and 5) Female Leadership 6) Unmet Needs. The collaborative group explored solutions for our specialty and the patients we serve.

Systemic causes of hair loss.

Hair loss is both a common chief complaint by patients and a clinical challenge for physicians, especially general practitioners, yet few dermatological problems yield as much patient satisfaction when resolved as hair loss. The diagnosis is often attributed to androgen-related hair loss, while other causes, some of which are life-threatening but treatable, are overlooked. We searched for relevant literature on hair loss and supported these findings with our clinical experience to identify seven major systemic etiologies of hair loss, ranging from infectious agents to consumption of unsafe supplements. Many causes are only described in the literature through case studies, though some original articles and meta-analyses are available. Careful history taking, proper examination techniques, and judicious use of laboratory tests are essential to reach at the correct diagnosis in a cost-effective manner when performing patient work-up. Such methodical evaluation of hair loss can result in the appropriate treatment plan and provide significant patient satisfaction. Key messages Hair loss is a common chief complaint and a difficult challenge for both general practitioners and dermatology consultants. We identified seven major categories of systemic hair loss etiology and present a framework for their clinical evaluation. A methodical approach to hair loss can result in the appropriate treatment plan and provide significant patient satisfaction.

Physician-Industry Collaboration: Organizational Considerations for the Future of Innovation and Growth in Dermatology.

The U.S. medical environment continues to evolve with issues from Privacy to EMR, Insurance regulations, Physician Access and Healthcare Reform, and MACRA (Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act) on the discussion table. Not since the advent of Medicare and Medicaid in the mid 1960's, have we seen such widespread changes in the medical healthcare environment (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services). Physicians, industry, patients and consumers are affected by the changes. These four groups have historically worked as separate entities, but are now key stakeholders in the future of dermatology. As stakeholders collaborating in building a future together, the dermatologists/physicians will help to ensure and preserve the quality of patient care and best patient outcomes. In the Executive Forum, leaders from the Women's Dermatologic Society and Industry, explored five important areas: 1) A five-year outlook of Dermatology and Medicine; 2) Access of Industry to Dermatologists and Trainees; 3) The New Practice Environment; 4) Doing Things Differently; and 5) Unmet Specialty Needs. The collaborative group explored solutions for our specialty and the patients we serve.

Standard management options for rosacea, part 1: overview and broad spectrum of care.

The standard management options were developed by a consensus committee and review panel of 26 experts to assist in providing optimal patient care based on the standard classification and grading systems for rosacea that were developed to perform research; analyze results and compare data from different sources; and provide a common terminology and reference for the diagnosis, treatment, and assessment of results in clinical practice. We discuss standard management options for rosacea in 2 parts: (1) overview and broad spectrum of care, and (2) options according to subtype. The options are considered provisional and may be expanded and updated as appropriate. Managing the various potential signs and symptoms of rosacea calls for consideration of a broad spectrum of care, and a more precise selection of therapeutic options may become increasingly possible as the mechanism of action of therapies are more definitively established.

Standard management options for rosacea, part 2: options according to subtype.

The standard management options were developed by a consensus committee and review panel of 26 experts to assist in providing optimal patient care based on the standard classification and grading systems for rosacea that were developed to perform research; analyze results and compare data from different sources; and provide a common terminology and reference for the diagnosis, treatment, and assessment of results in clinical practice. We discuss the standard management options for rosacea in 2 parts: (1) overview and broad spectrum of care, and (2) management options according to subtype. The menu of options is considered provisional and may be expanded and updated as appropriate. Managing the various potential signs and symptoms of rosacea calls for consideration of a broad spectrum of care, and a more precise selection of therapeutic options may become increasingly possible as the mechanisms of action of therapies are more definitively established.

A systemic type I 5 alpha-reductase inhibitor is ineffective in the treatment of acne vulgaris.

Excessive sebum production is a central aspect of the pathophysiology of acne vulgaris. Sebaceous gland function is under androgen control and it is hypothesized that dihydrotestosterone is formed by the action of 5 alpha-reductase. Type I is the controlling isoenzyme. This study describes a 3-month, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial with a potent, selective inhibitor of type I 5 alpha-reductase used alone and in combination with systemic minocycline. Inhibition of type I 5 alpha-reductase was not associated with clinical improvement of acne when used alone and did not enhance the clinical benefit of systemic minocycline. These results indicate the need for further work at the molecular level to better understand the action of androgens on sebaceous gland function.

Validation of expert opinion in identifying comorbidities associated with atopic dermatitis/eczema.

BACKGROUND: The use of expert opinion is widespread in economic studies of healthcare utilisation; however, few studies have attempted to assess the validity of assumptions derived from such sources. OBJECTIVE: To examine the use of such expert opinion in determining comorbidities associated with atopic dermatitis/eczema (AD/E), which were assessed as part of a recent third-party payer cost-of-illness study. DESIGN: To identify the disease-related comorbidities that would represent costs associated with AD/E, physicians on an expert panel were asked individually and then collectively to group all International Classification of Diseases, 9(th) Edition-Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnosis codes as 'most likely', 'possibly' or 'definitely not' related to the costs of identifying and treating patients with AD/E. Claims representing $US464 million in payer reimbursements from nearly 125 000 patients with AD/E were identified within two separate claims databases (1997 values). Over 850 ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes were identified in the first-listed position from these claims. For each group of 'most likely', 'possibly' and 'definitely not' related diagnosis codes, prevalence rates were compared within AD/E and non-AD/E populations from the two historical payer claims databases. Adjusted and non-adjusted odds ratios were calculated by comparing prevalence rates between AD/E and non-AD/E patients in the same payer population. RESULTS: The mean prevalence rate of any diagnosis code in the AD/E population was 0.65 +/- 1.82% (SD) with a mean odds ratio of 1.81 +/- 0.96. Comorbidities considered by the expert panel 'most likely' to be associated with AD/E had higher prevalence rates (3.28 +/- 3.63%) and odds ratios (2.14 +/- 1.14). Comorbidities considered to be 'possibly' related to AD/E had prevalence rates and odds ratios of 3.01 +/- 5.06% and 1.84 +/- 0.82, respectively. Comorbidities considered to be 'definitely not' related to AD/E had the lowest prevalence rates (0.45 +/- 1.09%) and odds ratios (1.80 +/- 0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Comparing the result of consensus panels with actual claims histories validated the use of expert opinion in determining comorbidities associated with AD/E. Expert opinion yielded valid results in terms of identifying comorbidities that manifested frequently and disproportionately in the AD/E population. Limited statistical measurements of comorbidities would have been less specific than expert opinion. Future cost-of-illness studies should consider alternative data sources and methodologies to enhance the validity and importance of expert opinion and to corroborate their findings.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of tacrolimus ointment versus high-potency topical corticosteroids in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: Few cost-effectiveness analyses have been conducted on topical therapies for atopic dermatitis. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare cost-effectiveness of high-potency topical corticosteroids (HPTCs) and tacrolimus ointment for the treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis for patients who are not responsive to or not well controlled with mid-potency topical corticosteroids. METHODS: A Markov model represented the cyclic nature of atopic dermatitis. Clinical outcomes were derived from published literature. "Efficacy" was defined as disease-controlled days on which patients experienced a greater than 75% improvement in their disease. Resource use and changes in management were on the basis of opinions of a physician panel; secondary treatment was an oral antibiotic with topical corticosteroids. Sensitivity analyses were conducted for all variables. RESULTS: The model was sensitive to duration of continuous treatment with HPTCs. HPTCs, when limited to 2-week treatment cycles, were associated with the highest total costs ($1682 per year) and the least efficacy (185 disease-controlled days). HPTCs in 4-week treatment intervals and tacrolimus ointment were similar in total costs and efficacy ($1317 vs $1323 for 194 vs 190 disease-controlled days, respectively). Although primary drug costs were higher for patients treated with tacrolimus ointment, patients treated with regimens of HPTCs incurred higher secondary drug costs. CONCLUSION: In the base case analyses, tacrolimus ointment was more cost-effective than HPTCs administered in 2-week treatment cycles, and similar in cost-effectiveness to 4-week cycles of HPTCs.