Search

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) shows promising potential to enhance human decision‐making as synergistic augmented intelligence (AuI), but requires critical evaluation for skin cancer screening in a real‐world setting. Objectives: To investigate the perspectives of patients and dermatologists after skin cancer screening by human, artificial and augmented intelligence. Methods: A prospective comparative cohort study conducted at the University Hospital Basel included 205 patients (at high‐risk of developing melanoma, with resected or advanced disease) and 8 dermatologists. Patients underwent skin cancer screening by a dermatologist with subsequent 2D and 3D total‐body photography (TBP). Any suspicious and all melanocytic skin lesions ≥3 mm were imaged with digital dermoscopes and classified by corresponding convolutional neural networks (CNNs). Excisions were performed based on dermatologist's melanoma suspicion, study‐defined elevated CNN risk‐scores and/or melanoma suspicion by AuI. Subsequently, all patients and dermatologists were surveyed about their experience using questionnaires, including quantification of patient's safety sense following different examinations (subjective safety score (SSS): 0–10). Results: Most patients believed AI could improve diagnostic performance (95.5%, n = 192/201). In total, 83.4% preferred AuI‐based skin cancer screening compared to examination by AI or dermatologist alone (3D‐TBP: 61.3%; 2D‐TBP: 22.1%, n = 199). Regarding SSS, AuI induced a significantly higher feeling of safety than AI (mean‐SSS (mSSS): 9.5 vs. 7.7, p < 0.0001) or dermatologist screening alone (mSSS: 9.5 vs. 9.1, p = 0.001). Most dermatologists expressed high trust in AI examination results (3D‐TBP: 90.2%; 2D‐TBP: 96.1%, n = 205). In 68.3% of the examinations, dermatologists felt that diagnostic accuracy improved through additional AI‐assessment (n = 140/205). Especially beginners (<2 years' dermoscopic experience; 61.8%, n = 94/152) felt AI facilitated their clinical work compared to experts (>5 years' dermoscopic experience; 20.9%, n = 9/43). Contrarily, in divergent risk assessments, only 1.5% of dermatologists trusted a benign CNN‐classification more than personal malignancy suspicion (n = 3/205). Conclusions: While patients already prefer AuI with 3D‐TBP for melanoma recognition, dermatologists continue to rely largely on their own decision‐making despite high confidence in AI‐results. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04605822). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Psoriasis is a disease that often requires prolonged systemic treatment. It is important to determine the safety of available therapies. There is currently little insight into sex‐specific differences in the safety of systemic psoriasis therapies. Objectives: To examine the real‐world, long‐term safety of systemic psoriasis therapies with sex stratification in drug‐related adverse events (ADRs). Methods: Ten‐year data from adults with moderate‐to‐severe psoriasis requiring systemic treatment (conventional systemic therapies [CST], biologics) were obtained from the Swiss psoriasis registry (SDNTT). ADRs were categorized according to the international terminology Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA). Safety was assessed by calculating event rates per 100 patient‐years (PY). We used descriptive statistics for patient and disease characteristics, and binomial and t‐tests to compare treatment groups and sex. Results: In total, 791 patients (290 females) were included with a mean age of 46 years. 358 (45%) received CSTs and 433 (55%) biologics; both groups had similar baseline characteristics except for more joint involvement in patients using biologics (26.86% vs. 14.8%, p < 0.0001). CSTs were associated with a 2.2‐fold higher ADR rate (40.43/100 PY vs. 18.22/100 PY, p < 0.0001) and an 8.0‐fold higher drug‐related discontinuation rate than biologics (0.16/PY vs. 0.02/PY, p < 0.0001). Trends showed non‐significant higher serious adverse event rates per 100 PY for biologics (8.19, CI 6.87–9.68) compared to CSTs (7.08, CI 5.39–9.13) (p = 0.3922). Sex stratification revealed a significantly higher overall ADR rate for all treatments in females (1.8‐fold for CSTs [57.30/100 PY vs. 31.69/100 PY] and 2.0‐fold for biologics [27.36/100 PY vs. 13.9/100 PY], p < 0.0001), and drug‐related discontinuation rates for most CSTs in females. Conclusion: Females were associated with a significantly higher rate of ADRs and drug‐related discontinuation rates. Sex stratification should be taken into consideration when designing studies in the patient‐tailored management of psoriasis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cutaneous lichenoid drug eruptions (LDE) are adverse drug reactions (ADR) characterized by symmetric, erythematous, violaceous papules reminiscent but rarely fully characteristic of lichen planus (LP). We aimed to analyse the literature describing cases of LDE within the last 20 years to provide additional insight into culprit drugs, typical latency to onset of the eruption, the spectrum of clinical presentations, severity and management. A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE between January 2000 and 27 January 2021. The keywords 'lichenoid drug rash' and 'lichenoid drug eruption' were used. Cases were included if LDE diagnosis was made, and culprit drugs were identified. A total of 323 cases with LDE were identified from 163 published case reports and studies. The mean patient age was 58.5 years (1 month to 92 years), and 135 patients (41.8%) were female. Checkpoint inhibitors (CKI) were the most frequently reported culprit drugs (136 cases; 42.1%), followed by tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) (39 cases; 12.0%) and anti‐TNF‐α‐monoclonal antibodies (13 cases; 4.0%). The latency between initiation of the drug and manifestation was 15.7 weeks (range: 0.1–208 weeks). After discontinuing the culprit drug, the median time to resolution was 14.2 weeks (range: 0.71–416 weeks). One hundred thirty‐six patients (42.1%) were treated with topical, and 54 patients (16.7%) with systemic glucocorticoids. Overall, we conclude that, albeit rare, LDE is challenging to diagnose ADR induced by mostly CKI, TKI, and biologics. Treatment modalities resemble that of lichen planus, and the culprit drugs had to be discontinued in only 26%, which is low compared with other types of adverse drug reactions. This is probably due to the low risk of aggravation (e.g. toxic epidermal necrolysis) if the drug is continued and the benefit/risk ratio favouring the drug, as is often the case in cancer therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The exact location of skin lesions is key in clinical dermatology. On one hand, it supports differential diagnosis (DD) since most skin conditions have specific predilection sites. On the other hand, location matters for dermatosurgical interventions. In practice, lesion evaluation is not well standardized and anatomical descriptions vary or lack altogether. Automated determination of anatomical location could benefit both situations. Objective: Establish an automated method to determine anatomical regions in clinical patient pictures and evaluate the gain in DD performance of a deep learning model (DLM) when trained with lesion locations and images. Methods: Retrospective study based on three datasets: macro‐anatomy for the main body regions with 6000 patient pictures partially labelled by a student, micro‐anatomy for the ear region with 182 pictures labelled by a student and DD with 3347 pictures of 16 diseases determined by dermatologists in clinical settings. For each dataset, a DLM was trained and evaluated on an independent test set. The primary outcome measures were the precision and sensitivity with 95% CI. For DD, we compared the performance of a DLM trained with lesion pictures only with a DLM trained with both pictures and locations. Results: The average precision and sensitivity were 85% (CI 84–86), 84% (CI 83–85) for macro‐anatomy, 81% (CI 80–83), 80% (CI 77–83) for micro‐anatomy and 82% (CI 78–85), 81% (CI 77–84) for DD. We observed an improvement in DD performance of 6% (McNemar test P‐value 0.0009) for both average precision and sensitivity when training with both lesion pictures and locations. Conclusion: Including location can be beneficial for DD DLM performance. The proposed method can generate body region maps from patient pictures and even reach surgery relevant anatomical precision, e.g. the ear region. Our method enables automated search of large clinical databases and make targeted anatomical image retrieval possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Use of Janus kinase 1 inhibitors in moderate‐to‐severe atopic dermatitis (AD) is associated with incident acne in adolescent and adults that is mostly mild, transient and treatable. There is a need for more knowledge about the risk and severity of acne in patients with AD. Objectives: To examine the prevalence, incidence and risk of acne in adolescents and adults with AD using nationwide prescription data. Methods: A matched cohort study of 6600 adults with AD and 66 000 controls was conducted using routinely and prospectively collected nationwide administrative data. Adjusted hazard ratios (HR) are reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: The 12‐month prevalence of acne was 3.7% in the general population and 3.9% among AD patients. The incidence rate of acne was highest among 12‐ to 18‐year‐old AD patients, and overall slightly higher in women with AD compared with males. The overall risk in patients with AD was similar with that of the general population (HR 0.96; 95% CI 0.88–1.06), whereas the risk of being treated for severe acne was reduced in AD patients (HR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47–0.73) and mainly among adolescents and young adults. The HR of acne increased with age reaching 1.41 (95% CI 1.07–1.87) for ages 30–39 years, and 2.07 (95% CI 1.42–3.03) for patients ≥40 years compared with controls. Conclusions: The risk and severity of acne in AD patients change with age and sex, which may be used for the risk assessment of acne following treatment with Janus kinase 1 inhibitors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Objective Methods Results Conclusion It is unknown whether the pre‐biologic treatment journey affects subsequent biologic drug survival.To examine the potential impact of a complex treatment journey on subsequent biologic drug survival in patients with psoriasis.The study utilized longitudinal data from Danish national registries and included all patients who, for the first time, initiated a biological treatment for psoriasis. Maximum follow‐up was 5 years and patients were included from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2021. The study used three definitions of exposure to a complex treatment journey and the following conventional systemic treatments: acitretin, cyclosporine, dimethyl fumarate and methotrexate. The first definition was the cumulative number of treatment series. The second definition comprised the number of unique treatments. The third definition was time from the first conventional systemic treatment to biological therapy. Drug survival for the three definitions were illustrated using Kaplan–Meier curves and compared using log‐rank test. The sensitivity analysis largely confirmed these findings by grouping patients according to pharmacotherapy.A total of 2496 patients were included in the study, with 1380 (55.3%) receiving adalimumab, 608 (24.4%) receiving ustekinumab, 271 (10.9%) receiving secukinumab, 166 (6.7%) receiving etanercept and 71 (2.8%) receiving infliximab. The mean age at initiation of biologics was 43.6 years (standard deviation (SD) 15.2 years), and most patients were male (62.9%). During the follow‐up of 5477 patient years, 1953 patients (78.2%) reached the main endpoint of discontinuation. Using a log‐rank test, the probability of remaining on treatment was unaffected by the three definitions of complexity of the treatment journey.None of the three exposures used to assess the complexity of the pre‐biologic treatment journey appeared to impact drug survival. As long as patients experience adequate disease control, these results suggest that conventional systemic treatment do not negatively impact the drug survival of subsequent biologics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a Phase 4 study evaluating the impact of apremilast on pruritus and quality of life in patients with moderate-to-severe scalp psoriasis. Apremilast showed promise in treating scalp psoriasis symptoms, with 85.7% of patients experiencing a reduction in scalp pruritus and 64.3% showing an improvement in quality of life. While the study had limitations, it contributes valuable data supporting the use of apremilast for scalp psoriasis treatment, especially for patients who do not respond well to other therapies. The study highlights the importance of treating scalp psoriasis and the potential benefits of apremilast in managing this condition. [Extracted from the article]