Mobile teledermatology helping patients control high-need acne: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Acne is an important health issue with a major psychological impact in addition to the physical problems it causes. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the superiority of mobile teledermatology in the care of patients with high-need facial acne in comparison to outpatient services with particular attention to treatment efficacy, safety, and patient compliance. Further, patient satisfaction with remote care was evaluated. METHODS: Sixty-nine consecutive patients (f: 25, m: 44, median age: 19 years, range: 13-37 years) were randomly allocated to either the teleconsultation (TCA) or the outpatient consultation (OCA) arm of the trial to receive isotretinoin treatment in weight and severity-dependent dosages over 24 weeks. Acne grading was performed by one examiner using the Global Acne Severity Scale (GEA) and the total lesion counting (TLC). RESULTS: Due to noncompliance issues, 17 of 69 (24.6%) patients were excluded from the study, of who 10 had been assigned to the TCA (10/34; 29.4%) and 7 to the OCA (7/35; 20%). Both, in the TCA (GEA-score: ∆ = 2.25; TLC: ∆ = 89.08) and in the OCA (GEA-score: ∆ = 2.0; TLC: ∆ = 91.21) excellent and almost equivalent therapeutic outcomes were achieved. In the TCA, however, less patients experienced adverse reactions (P = 0.55). Even though additional live supervision would have been appreciated in some teledermatology cases, patients were satisfied with the mobile service and no consultation request was created. CONCLUSION: Mobile teledermatology is an efficient, safe and well-accepted tool among patients with high-need acne constituting at least a valuable adjunct to outpatient care services. Further larger studies would be useful to confirm our findings.

Office laboratory tests. Perceptions of profitability.

Theoretic modeling suggests that common office tests as a group are profitable. To determine whether practicing internists perceive this profitability and whether their perceptions differ for different tests or for patients with different types of insurance coverage, the authors surveyed 111 physicians in private office practice. Respondents' estimates of receipts for tests done on patients with Medicare or Blue Cross/Blue Shield coverage were higher than their estimated costs for the testing. Estimates of receipts from Medicaid patients were lower than estimated costs of testing. After standardizing the estimated receipts from patients with different insurance coverages, the authors found that the average estimated profits for different tests on an "average insured patient" varied sixfold, from $5.99 for an electrocardiogram to $1.01 for a urinalysis. The authors suggest that perceived financial incentives are extremely variable by test. Different insurance coverages are perceived as providing varying financial incentives for testing; Medicaid provides a disincentive. Appropriate reform of the existing fee schedules should be selective by test and coverage.