Search

Psoriasis and atopic dermatitis are chronic inflammatory skin conditions, each affecting about 2-3% of the United States adult population. Phototherapy, such as narrowband ultraviolet-B (NB-UVB) therapy have been employed for the treatment of both psoriasis and atopic dermatitis for decades. More recently, systemic biologics have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), representing a great advancement in dermatology. No comprehensive study to date has compared the cost efficacy of phototherapy compared to FDA-approved biologics for the treatment of psoriasis and atopic dermatitis. We pursued a systematic review of the literature for studies assessing efficacy of NB-UVB or biologics with endpoints including the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI). Thirty-four studies including 55 treatment regimens and 5,123 patients were included in the analysis. Phototherapy costs were estimated with Medicare fee schedules for phototherapy-related current procedural terminology code (CPT), and biologic costs were estimated with wholesale acquisition cost (WAC). Total costs to achieve PASI 75 or EASI 75 in each study were standardized to a single month, the "adjusted cost," and exploited to a year, the "effective yearly cost," allowing direct cost-efficacy comparison despite different durations of treatment described in studies. The psoriasis analysis found NB-UVB to be the most cost-effective therapy, with an adjusted monthly cost of $1714.00 per PASI 75. Infliximab was the least expensive biologic, with an adjusted monthly cost of $2076.00 to $2502.00 per PASI 75. For atopic dermatitis, no NB-UVB studies utilized EASI 75 as their outcome measure, hindering the ability to directly compare cost effectiveness for the treatment of atopic dermatitis. However, all NB-UVB studies depicted a reduced treatment cost per treatment period compared to studies assessing biologics, although this comparison does not account for efficacy. The results depict NB-UVB to be the most cost effective for the treatment of psoriasis and the least expensive per treatment period for the treatment of atopic dermatitis. However, certain factors need to be taken into account. Biologics may be more effective for more severe disease, do not require multiple weekly clinic visits, and the ease for patient compliance may lead some to favor biologic therapy. This study is necessary to allow physicians, patients, and health systems to make informed decisions regarding cost-efficacy for a variety of treatment options., (© 2023 the International Society of Dermatology.)

Purpose: Lower socioeconomic status is associated with decreased sun protection practices. This survey study investigated practices and beliefs surrounding sun protection based on health insurance., Methods: 401 surveys were administered May to June 2019 at two dermatology clinics in Sacramento, California. 384 surveys by private insurance, Medi-Cal (California's Medicaid), and Medicare coverage were analyzed., Results: Patients with Medi-Cal are twice as likely to rarely or never use sunscreen (OR=2.37; 95% CI 1.45-3.87; P<0.001) compared to those with private insurance. Patients with Medi-Cal or Medicare are less likely to use sunscreen (P<0.001), protective clothing (P=0.025), and sun avoidance (P=0.028). Medi-Cal patients more often used tanning beds (OR=4.90; 95% CI 1.30-18.50; P=0.019). Over half of patients with Medi-Cal agreed it is worth getting burned for a tan (54.6%, OR=2.54; 95% CI 1.41-4.62; P=0.0021). There were no significant differences in opinion that sunscreen is a hassle to apply or expensive. Groups did not differ significantly in ethnicities or skin type., Conclusion: Those with Medi-Cal are less likely to use all forms of sun protection and more likely to value tanning. Negative opinions of sunscreen and perceived knowledge and concern for skin cancer were similar, pointing to additional factors influencing these disparities.

Many facets of wound healing under redox control require a delicate balance between oxidative stress and antioxidants. While the normal physiology of wound healing depends on low levels of reactive oxygen species and oxidative stress, an overexposure to oxidative stress leads to impaired wound healing. Antioxidants are postulated to help control wound oxidative stress and thereby accelerate wound healing. Many antioxidants are available over the counter or by prescription, but only one, Medihoney®, has been specifically FDA approved for wound healing. Here we review the existing evidence for the use of antioxidants for wound healing, with a review of the pertinent animal and clinical studies. Natural products and naturally derived antioxidants are becoming more popular, and we specifically review the evidence for the use of naturally derived antioxidants in wound healing. Antioxidant therapy for wound healing is promising, but only few animal studies and even fewer clinical studies are available. Because only few products have undergone FDA approval, the consumer is advised to scrutinize them for purity and contaminants prior to use, and this may require direct contact with the companies that sell them. As a field of science, the use of antioxidants for wound healing is in its infancy, and future studies will better elucidate the role of antioxidants in wound healing., (Copyright © 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

We present perspectives from four fourth year medical students who matched into dermatology that highlight the factors they believed helped them most. The purpose is to offer advice to medical students interested in dermatology. We divide the paper into four areas of discussion: academics, extracurricular activities, research, and mentorship. All four factors are crucial for a strong dermatology application. We believe the paper provides valuable suggestions and guidance to students considering a career in dermatology.