Search

Telemedicine emerged as an alternative care delivery system used to offer effective long-term management to patients with chronic, inflammatory conditions such as psoriatic disease. Teledermatology can provide reliable clinical information through thorough history-taking and virtual evaluations that include patient-provided images and disease activity assessment tools that may help accurately diagnose and manage patients with psoriasis. The integration of validated screening tools for psoriatic arthritis and effective teledermatology practices may improve access to specialists, thus avoiding preventable delays in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with psoriatic arthritis. Although the provision of telehealthcare should not completely replace high quality, in-person dermatologic or rheumatologic visits, the convenience and collaborative nature of teledermatology may lead to expanded access and expedited care in the appropriate setting, whether it be in a virtual or in-person visit.

Biosimilars are beginning to gain regulatory approval in the United States. Biosimilars are structurally near identical to the innovator and must demonstrate identical pharmacokinetics via the same binding affinity and biological function on assays. However, biologics are so complex that even the innovator company cannot produce exact duplicates; there is batch-to-batch variation. The International Psoriasis Council has outlined a biosimilarity index, which aims to standardize preclinical definitions of biosimilarity. Such an index, paired with post-approval monitoring, could provide a transparent, quantitative definition of biosimilarity. Such an index could increase trust in biosimilar medicines and the preclinical assessment process without increasing costs. As preclinical analyses are critical to biosimilar approval, manufacturers should devote proportionate resources to completing them. Dermatologists, who might reflexively look for indication-specific clinical data, might also shift their focus to preclinical variables. Finally, it should be noted that biosimilars provide more evidence of similarity than we have for different batches of the innovator product. Thus, any clinical testing standards, or lack thereof, for different batches of innovator products should also apply to biosimilars.

Background: Changes to the iPLEDGE platform on December 13, 2021 made isotretinoin virtually inaccessible for many patients. Prior to the FDA approval of isotretinoin, a derivative of vitamin A, in 1982, vitamin A was used for severe acne. Objective: To review the efficacy, safety, affordability, and practicality of vitamin A as a substitute for isotretinoin when the latter is inaccessible. Methods: A literature review of PubMed was conducted using the key words: oral vitamin A, retinol, isotretinoin, Accutane, acne, iPLEDGE, hypervitaminosis A, and side effects. Results: We identified 9 studies (8 clinical trials and one case report); acne improved in 8 studies. Dosages ranged from 36,000IU daily to 500,000IU with 100,000IU as the most common. Mean duration until clinical improvement was 7 weeks to four months after initiation of therapy. Mucocutaneous side effects were most common, along with headaches, which resolved with either continued treatment or cessation. Conclusion: Oral vitamin A is efficacious for the treatment of acne vulgaris, although the available studies have limited controls and outcomes. Side effects are qualitatively similar to those of isotretinoin and avoiding pregnancy for at least three months after stopping treatment is critical; like isotretinoin, vitamin A is a teratogen.

Psoriasis severity assessments for clinical trial entry may be unintentionally overestimated, especially if trial eligibility is chiefly dependent on rating of disease severity. When this results in patients with less severe phenotypes joining clinical trials it is referred to as eligibility creep. We investigated the potential impact of psychosocial incentives on psoriasis lesion severity grading. A survey was constructed and disseminated through Amazon Mechanical Turk. Participants completed two vignette-style questions prompted with a randomly allocated psychosocial incentive. Questions required participants to grade and select psoriasis lesion pictures for a fictional trial. Participants also decided whether or not to schedule re-evaluation of patients deemed ineligible at initial visit. There were 646 participants. There was no significant difference in number of total lesions selected for study inclusion between incentive groups (Kruskal-Wallis, P=0.30). In general, participants completing empathy and professional uncertainty incentives selected the most and least number of lesion pictures for trial inclusion, respectively. Participants prompted with empathy incentives had significantly greater rates of choosing to schedule a follow-up visit for ineligible patients compared to participants prompted with other incentives (69.7% versus 59.1%, Chi square P=0.046). Situations evoking empathy may contribute to eligibility creep.

The presentation of a physician's clothing and themselves is an important part of the physician-patient interaction. Physician attire can impact patient satisfaction and trust in their physician. We sought to discover the influence physician attire may have on patients' comfort level with proposed treatment plans, which could influence treatment adherence. We surveyed 495 subjects to better understand the relationship between physician attire and patients' perceptions of treatment plans. We found subjects' comfort level in proposed treatment plans was not significantly affected by physician attire. This finding suggests physician attire may not be as important when considering the potential effect on treatment adherence.

Background: Many patients struggle with choosing and adhering to biologics. Psychological approaches (e.g. decoy effect) may impact patients' choices when selecting a biologic. Objective: Assess whether decoy options influence choice between injectable treatment options. Methods: Following IRB approval, 750 subjects >18 years were recruited through MTurk. Subjects were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio into the following groups: 1) baseline comparison between a more effective, weekly injection and a less effective, every-three-month injection; 2) baseline with a decoy inferior to the weekly injection; 3) baseline with a decoy inferior to the every-three-month injection. Treatment preference was self-reported and compared using chi-square tests. Results: Sixty-six percent of subjects preferred the weekly injection versus 34% for the every-three-month injection (group 1). There was a 4% increase in the number of subjects who preferred the weekly injection (70%; group 2; P=0.34) and a 3% increase for the every-three-month injection (37%) when a decoy inferior to them was included (group 3; P=0.56). Conclusion: Psychological approaches can be used to enhance treatment initiation and adherence. However, the decoy effect did not appear to have a significant impact in this study. Patients' preferences for efficacy versus frequency of injection may be rather fixed.

There is limited information of the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the general population's perceptions towards teledermatology. This study aims to assess the pandemic's impact on people's willingness to use teledermatology as well as to investigate influencing factors. We recruited 544 participants through Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) and surveyed them using REDCap. Participants' willingness to use teledermatology before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic was measured via a 5-point Likert scale. The survey also included questions regarding factors influencing participants' attitudes towards teledermatology and their sociodemographic characteristics. Of the 185 participants who reported unwillingness to use teledermatology prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 79.2% and 66.5% became either neutral or willing to use teledermatology during and after the pandemic, respectively. Less than half of prior satisfactory telemedicine users reported willingness to use teledermatology before the pandemic; willingness to use teledermatology increased to 80.1% and 63.8% during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, respectively. The top reason for lack of interest in teledermatology was concern for security and privacy (24.4%). Although a useful tool, teledermatology has been met with reluctance by the public. However, the unique circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic have improved the public's perceptions and readiness to use teledermatology.