Improving systemic therapy selection for inflammatory skin diseases: A clinical need survey.

Background: Empirical decisions to select therapies for psoriasis (PSO) and atopic dermatitis (AD) can lead to delays in disease control and increased health care costs. However, routine molecular testing for AD and PSO are lacking. Objective: To examine (1) how clinicians choose systemic therapies for patients with PSO and AD without molecular testing and (2) to determine how often the current approach leads to patients switching medications. Methods: A 20-question survey designed to assess clinician strategies for systemic treatment of AD and PSO was made available to attendees of a national dermatology conference in 2022. Results: Clinicians participating in the survey (265/414, 64% response rate) ranked "reported efficacy" as the most important factor governing treatment choice (P < .001). However, 62% (165/265) of clinicians estimated that 2 or more systemic medications were typically required to achieve efficacy. Over 90% (239/265) of respondents would or would likely find a molecular test to guide therapeutic selection useful. Limitations: To facilitate ease of recall, questions focused on systemic therapies as a whole and not individual therapies. Conclusion: Clinicians want a molecular test to help determine the most efficacious drug for individual patients.

Teledermatology Platforms Usage and Barriers: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of United States-Based Dermatologists Pre- and Post-COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: During the global COVID-19 pandemic, dermatologists increasingly adopted teledermatology to facilitate patient care. OBJECTIVE: To identify differences in teledermatology platform usage and functionality among dermatologists as a means of understanding the potential effect on virtual healthcare access. METHODS: Results from a 2021 cross-sectional pre-validated survey distributed to actively practicing United States dermatologists were analyzed based on timepoint when teledermatology was adopted relative to COVID-19, previous/currently used platforms, self-reported platform functionality, and barriers to teledermatology implementation. Analysis was performed using chi-square and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for categorical data and single-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) with post-hoc Tukey-Kramer for continuous data. P<.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Early adopters (EAs) trialed significantly more (2.3 vs 1.9, P=0.02) platforms than (post) COVID adopters (CAs) before choosing their current platform. More EAs reported using platforms capable of uploading images (P=.002), required a mobile application (P=.006), and allowed staff to join patient encounters (P<.001). While poor image quality was the most cited barrier to implementation, CAs and non-adaptors (NAs) were materially more likely to cite it as their largest barrier to teledermatology. LIMITATIONS: The retrospective nature of the study and potential response bias. CONCLUSION: Dermatologists' use of teledermatology materially correlates with their teledermatology-adoption timepoint, and future usage may be materially impacted by the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency. Future studies should aim at how implementation and barriers to teledermatology usage may impact access to care. J Drugs Dermatol. 2024;23(2): doi:10.36849/JDD.7819e.

Telemedicine Versus Teledermatology Usage and Perception Among US-Based Physicians: A Survey Study.

The COVID-19 pandemic has sparked an increase in focus and use of telemedicine in several patient care settings. This survey study was distributed to actively practicing US-based physicians and examines telehealth use 2 years after the beginning of the COVID pandemic from a physician’s perspective. Notable findings include telehealth benefits which include increased patient access and the ability to work from home. A continued drawback in telehealth visits is the limitations on a complete physical examination, a drawback that was emphasized by the dermatology community. While this study sheds light on the developing nature of telehealth, it is limited by its retrospective nature and sample size. Future research with larger sample sizes focusing on economic incentives and telemedicine training may help to overcome barriers to using telehealth.  J Drugs Dermatol. 2023;22(11):e4-e8    doi:10.36849/JDD.7386e.

Characteristic Distinctions Between Pre-/Post-COVID-19 Teledermatology Adoptees: A Cross-Sectional United States-based Analysis and the Implications for Dermatologic Healthcare Equity.

BACKGROUND: Studies suggest potential heterogeneity in telemedicine adoption with potential to exacerbate healthcare access inequity. METHODS: A pre-validated survey was electronically sent to a proprietary listserv of practicing US-based dermatologists. Results were stratified by when teledermatology was adopted. Chi-square and odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were used to analyze categorical data while single-factor ANOVA with posthoc Tukey-Kramer was used for continuous data. RESULTS: 338 practicing US-based dermatologists completed the questionnaire. Academic/Government dermatologists were 4-times more likely (OR 4.08, 95%CI 2.37-7.03) to adopt teledermatology pre-COVID than private-practice dermatologists. Dermatologists with ≤10 years of experience were 1.8-times (OR 1.8, 95%CI 1.01-3.18) and 2.82-times more likely (OR 2.82, 95%CI 0.78-10.25) to adopt teledermatology pre-COVID-19 or at all, respectively, compared to dermatologists with ≥20 years of experience. Teledermatology adopters practiced more medical-dermatology (P<.0001) than non-adopters, who reported practicing more dermatologic surgery (P=.003; Tukey-Kramer α<.05) and dermatopathology (P<.0001; Tukey-Kramer α<.05). Pre-COVID-19 adopters were 4-times more likely (OR 4.69, 95%CI 1.46-15.07) to switch/incorporate live-interactive-only teledermatology (LI) post-COVID-19. Post-COVID-19 adopters were 6-times more likely (OR 6.09, 95%CI 3.36-11.06) to utilize LI than Pre-COVID-19 adopters. Pre-COVID-19 adopters use teledermatology for a larger proportion of patient visits than Post-COVID-19 adopters (19.6% v 10.4%, P<.0001), but also are 3.43-times more likely (OR 3.43, 95%CI 1.82-6.46) to report future decreases in usage. LIMITATIONS: Cross-sectional retrospective survey and potential response bias. CONCLUSION: Current teledermatology usage may be a suitable tool for medical-dermatology-focused practices. Material hurdles still exist for procedurally-oriented practices and future studies should investigate these barriers to maximize equitable access to dermatological care. J Drugs Dermatol. 2023;21(1):101-104. doi:10.36849/JDD.7169.

Real-World Evidence Shows Clinicians Appropriately Use the Prognostic 40-Gene Expression Profile (40-GEP) Test for High-Risk Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma (cSCC) Patients.

Treatment decisions for patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) are traditionally based upon clinicopathologic risk factors and staging systems. Due to the accuracy limitations of these resources in predicting poor outcomes, there is a clinically significant need for more accurate methods of risk assessment. The 40-gene expression profile (40-GEP) test was developed to augment metastatic risk prediction of high-risk cSCC patients and has been validated in two independent, multi-center studies involving over 1,000 patients. This study substantiates that the 40-GEP is appropriately utilized by clinicians and that the personalized risk-stratification results are impactful in guiding risk-aligned patient management.

Improved cutaneous melanoma survival stratification through integration of 31-gene expression profile testing with the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th Edition Staging.

Cutaneous melanoma (CM) survival is assessed using averaged data from the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition (AJCC8). However, subsets of AJCC8 stages I-III have better or worse survival than the predicted average value. The objective of this study was to determine if the 31-gene expression profile (31-GEP) test for CM can further risk-stratify melanoma-specific mortality within each AJCC8 stage. This retrospective multicenter study of 901 archival CM samples obtained from patients with stages I-III CM assessed 31-GEP test predictions of 5-year melanoma-specific survival (MSS) using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards. In stage I-III CM population, patients with a Class 2B result had a lower 5-year MSS (77.8%) than patients with a Class 1A result (98.7%) and log-rank testing demonstrated significant stratification of MSS [χ2 (2df, n = 901) = 99.7, P < 0.001). Within each stage, 31-GEP data provided additional risk stratification, including in stage I [χ2 (2df, n = 415) = 11.3, P = 0.004]. Cox regression multivariable analysis showed that the 31-GEP test was a significant predictor of melanoma-specific mortality (MSM) in patients with stage I-III CM [hazard ratio: 6.44 (95% confidence interval: 2.61-15.85), P < 0.001]. This retrospective study focuses on Class 1A versus Class 2B results. Intermediate results (Class 1B/2A) comprised 21.6% of cases with survival rates between Class 1A and 2B, and similar to 5-year MSS AJCC stage values. Data from the 31-GEP test significantly differentiates MSM into lower (Class 1A) and higher risk (Class 2B) groups within each AJCC8 stage. Incorporating 31-GEP results into AJCC8 survival calculations has the potential to more precisely assess survival and enhance management guidance.

Expert Consensus on the Use of Prognostic Gene Expression Profiling Tests for the Management of Cutaneous Melanoma: Consensus from the Skin Cancer Prevention Working Group.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic assessment of cutaneous melanoma relies on historical, clinicopathological, and phenotypic risk factors according to American Joint Committee on Cancer(AJCC) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines but may not account for a patient's individual additional genetic risk factors. OBJECTIVE: To review the available literature regarding commercially available gene expression profile (GEP) tests and their use in the management of cutaneous melanoma. METHODS: A literature search was conducted for original, English-language studies or meta-analyses published between 2010 and 2021 on commercially available GEP tests in cutaneous melanoma prognosis, clinical decision-making regarding sentinel lymph node biopsy, and real-world efficacy. After the literature review, the Skin Cancer Prevention Working Group, an expert panel of dermatologists with specialized training in melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer diagnosis and management, utilized a modified Delphi technique to develop consensus statements regarding prognostic gene expression profile tests. Statements were only adopted with a supermajority vote of > 80%. RESULTS: The initial search identified 1064 studies/meta-analyses that met the search criteria. Of these, we included 21 original articles and meta-analyses that studied the 31-GEP test (DecisionDx-Melanoma; Castle Biosciences, Inc.), five original articles that studied the 11-GEP test (Melagenix; NeraCare GmbH), and four original articles that studied the 8-GEP test with clinicopathological factors (Merlin; 8-GEP + CP; SkylineDx B.V.) in this review. Six statements received supermajority approval and were adopted by the panel. CONCLUSION: GEP tests provide additional, reproducible information for dermatologists to consider within the larger framework of the eighth edition of the AJCC and NCCN cutaneous melanoma guidelines when counseling regarding prognosis and when considering a sentinel lymph node biopsy.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Physician-Pharmaceutical Office-Based Interactions.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has had significant negative economic ramifications on dermatologic care delivery, including curtailing live on-site physician-pharmaceutical-representative interactions (PPRI). OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of COVID-19 and pandemic regulations on current and future PPRI. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey-based study that analyzed data from 400 surveyed dermatologists using a pre-validated questionnaire sent via email. Data regarding PPRI were collected over 1 week in July 2020 to compare demographics and practice standards from April 2019, April 2020, July 2020, and predictions for 2021. RESULTS: Virtual-only PPRI increased from 7.8% in April 2019 to 26.5% during April 2020 (mean difference, 18.8%; 95% confidence interval, 13.6%–23.9%). Virtual-only PPRI remained elevated at 24.5% while hybrid PPRI increased, eventually surpassing the April 2019 mark (27.0%). These trends persisted among all studied practice types and levels of experience. Practices predicted no significant percent differences in participation in PPRI (87.3% vs 90.3%; P=0.0834), but a significant shift in method of delivery where the odds ratio of incorporating a virtual component into PPRI in 2021 increased by a factor of 3. LIMITATIONS: Relatively small sample size, especially among subgroups. Responses may have been retrospective estimates. There may also be selection bias given slightly increased representation of more experienced dermatologists. CONCLUSION: PPRI materially decreased during the initial COVID-19 peak but will likely return to baseline volume moving forward with a significant component being hybrid PPRI. Further studies may better elucidate the economic and clinical impact associated with these changes and their effect on dermatologists’ ability to provide patients with samples and educational materials. J Drugs Dermatol. 2021;20(2):215-223. doi:10.36849/JDD.5651.

Increased Uniformity in Diagnostic Accuracy of Pigmented Lesions Using Electrical Impedance Spectroscopy Information.

BACKGROUND: Novel non-invasive technologies augment information available to a clinician to enhance diagnosis. Electrical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) is a highly sensitive technology used before biopsy to differentiate equivocal lesions through differences in electrical resistance of benign versus malignant cells. A recent study of an EIS device approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration supported this device's impact on clinical management among dermatology residents. The device provides an EIS score, which increases with greater likelihood of malignancy. OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether the addition of an EIS score improved uniformity and diagnostic accuracy of pigmented lesions. METHODS: A post-hoc analysis of previously collected data from a survey of 164 dermatology residents was performed. Residents were asked to determine whether they would biopsy a lesion based on clinical morphology alone versus clinical morphology with an EIS score. A total of 45 lesions were assessed (including 17 malignant and 28 benign lesions). Subjects were grouped by percent correct pre-EIS score biopsy decisions and divided into quartiles. RESULTS: With clinical assessment alone, the mean correct decisions to biopsy was 59.9%. With the addition of EIS score, the mean increased to 71.0%. All quartiles significantly increased their correct biopsy decisions with EIS (P<0.001), but the lowest scoring quartiles improved more than the highest scoring quartiles. CONCLUSION: The data from the EIS device were designed to be integrated into the biopsy decision as an additional piece of information in the diagnostic pathway. The study findings are consistent with this objective. In addition to clinical judgment, the use of the EIS score most increased the lowest-scoring residents, but all were improved after integrating the EIS score. EIS information improved homogeneity of ability and diagnostic accuracy.

Revisiting Handwashing - As It Is Absolutely Essential.

As the coronavirus pandemic continues into the second half of 2020, states across the US remain steadfast in their search to determine the safest methods of returning to normalcy. Without a readily available, effective COVID-19 vaccine, and as the numbers of infected individuals continues to climb, the best practices to ensure public safety are rooted in good personal hygiene and prevention of transmission of the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2. To that end, in addition to properly wearing adequate facial covering, individuals should properly wash their hands to prevent direct auto-inoculation. J Drugs Dermatol. 2020;19(11): 1127-1129 doi:10.36849/JDD.2020.5557.

Impact of a prognostic 40-gene expression profiling test on clinical management decisions for high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma.

Objective: To determine how results from a prognostic 40-gene expression profiling (40-GEP) test would impact clinician management decisions and how their choices would align with a National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) compliant, risk-directed management plan for high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC).Methods: Clinicians attending a national dermatology conference were presented with 40-GEP test validation data. They were asked to rate clinicopathological features and molecular test results to assess their opinion of how concerning each is to cSCC prognosis. When presented with vignettes describing patients with NCCN-defined high-risk features, clinicians were asked to select a treatment plan using pre-test (no 40-GEP results), then, post-test (40-GEP Class 1, 2A, or 2B results) methodology along with corresponding metastasis rates for each test group.Results: Risk factors deemed of highest concern for metastatic outcomes were a Class 2B 40-GEP result, perineural invasion, immunosuppression, invasion beyond subcutaneous fat, and tumor diameter >1 cm on the scalp. When presented with a 40-GEP result that indicated reduced risk of metastasis (Class 1), clinicians altered their treatment management plan accordingly. Specifically, there was significant reduction in the recommendations for sentinel lymph node biopsy, adjuvant radiation or chemotherapy, follow-up time, and nodal imaging. By comparison, when a 40-GEP result indicated an increased risk of metastasis (Class 2B), significant risk-appropriate increases in management intensity was observed for the aforementioned clinical decisions.Conclusion: Integration of 40-GEP results impacted management decisions in a significant and risk-appropriate manner for high-risk cSCC patient scenarios, while remaining aligned with national guidelines for patient management.

The Use of Brodalumab in Three Patients with Psoriasis and Psychiatric Comorbidities.

Brodalumab, a first-in-class interleukin-17 (IL-17) receptor blocker, carries a black box warning for suicidal ideation and behavior, yet it is also one of the most powerful biologic agents in our armamentarium. We wish to highlight three patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis and comorbid depression who were successfully treated with brodalumab. The patients were chosen by an expert panel comprising dermatologists, psychiatrists, and psychologists. Psoriasis disease severity was measured using the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score. All three patients experienced PASI 100 after treatment with brodalumab (N=3). Importantly, depressive symptoms improved or resolved in two out of three patients. One patient, who had a history of psychiatric hospitalizations, required in-patient psychiatric treatment during treatment. The use of brodalumab in patients with psoriasis can provide rapid-onset improvement in both skin and depressive symptoms.

Impact of Gene Expression Profile Testing on the Management of Squamous Cell Carcinoma by Dermatologists

Background: The incidence of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) is increasing likely due to improved detection and a growing elderly population. Although the prognosis of cSCC is excellent with complete surgical excision, many patients who go on to develop metastasis are initially classified as low-risk. The most commonly used staging systems, American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) and Brigham Women's Hospital (BWH), have low sensitivity and low positive predictive value for predicting metastasis. A gene expression profile test (cSCC-GEP) is in development to identify patients with cSCC at high risk for metastasis and death. Objective: To determine the impact of cSCC-GEP test results on management decisions made by dermatologists for cSCC patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: 402 dermatologists attending a national dermatology conference completed an online survey designed to determine the impact of cSCC-GEP test results on management decisions in a variety of clinical situations. Participants answered a series of questions related to three cSCC patient vignettes, each featuring different patient and lesion characteristics. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of dermatologists who would recommend radiation, chemotherapy/immunotherapy, or sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNBx) for each patient vignette (without cSCC-GEP results, with a lower risk result, or with a higher risk result). The effect of the test results on the follow-up intervals recommended by dermatologists was also examined. Results: In the majority of vignettes, a lower risk cSCC-GEP test result led to a statistically significant decrease in the proportion of dermatologists who would recommend radiation, chemotherapy/immunotherapy, SLNBx, or quarterly follow-up. Conversely, a higher risk cSCC-GEP result significantly altered management toward increased intensity (more recommendations for radiation, chemotherapy/immunotherapy, SLNBx, or quarterly follow-up) in all vignettes. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of a cSCC-GEP test appear to significantly impact decisions made by dermatologists regarding subsequent management, SLNBx, and follow-up intervals for patients with cSCC. J Drugs Dermatol. 2019;18(10):980-984.