The latest medical research on Dermatology

ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers, NCT03745638 and NCT03745651 (both studies were registered on November 19, 2018).

The aim of this paper was to assess additional patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the vehicle-controlled (VC) and long-term safety (LTS) periods of TRuE-AD1/TRuE-AD2.

In the TRuE-AD studies, patients aged ≥12 years with AD were randomized 2:2:1 to apply twice-daily 1.5% ruxolitinib cream, 0.75% ruxolitinib cream, or vehicle cream continuously for 8 weeks (VC period). During the LTS period, patients applied the same ruxolitinib cream strength, but on an as-needed basis; patients who initially applied vehicle were re-randomized to apply 0.75% or 1.5% ruxolitinib cream. Pooled data from both study periods were analyzed. PRO assessments included symptoms (itch [Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure, POEM], skin pain [numerical rating scale], and sleep [POEM and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System]) and assessments of disease-specific QoL (Dermatology Life Quality Index [DLQI] and the children's version [CDLQI]).

A total of 1208 and 1031 patients from the VC and LTS periods, respectively, were included in the analysis. Significant improvements in skin pain were observed within 12 h among patients who applied ruxolitinib cream versus vehicle; improvements continued throughout the VC period. Improvements in patient-reported symptoms (including sleep) were observed within 2 weeks (first assessment) of ruxolitinib cream application. At Week 2, significant improvements in symptom burden and overall QoL were observed with ruxolitinib cream (0.75%/1.5%) versus vehicle in POEM (-8.9/-9.8 vs -2.2; both p < 0.0001), DLQI (mean changes from baseline, -5.8/-6.1 vs -1.2; both p < 0.0001), and CDLQI (-4.3/-5.3 vs -1.3; both p < 0.0001). Further symptom burden and QoL improvements were reported during the VC period and were maintained through the end of the LTS period (Week 52).

Consistent with the previously reported itch response data, ruxolitinib cream improved skin pain within 12 h of application. Ruxolitinib cream improved patient-reported AD symptom burden and overall QoL by Week 2. Improvements continued or were maintained for 52 weeks. (Graphical abstract and plain language summary available).

Pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) is rare neutrophil skin disease causing painful, progressively enlarging ulcers. Among the treatment options, intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) is a therapy of first choice for paraneoplastic PG. Otherwise, it is used in therapy-refractory courses.

To assess the efficacy and safety of IVIG therapy in patients with PG.

A retrospective chart review for patients in five dermatologic wound centres in Germany was performed.

Overall, 81 patients were included. IVIG was used as adjunct therapy with (methyl-) prednisolone and/or a steroid sparing therapy in 77 (95.1%) cases. Response to treatment (combined complete and partial, defined as tendency to heal and cessation of lesion progression, respectively) was 49.3% 1 month after initiation of IVIG. In total 18.8% had a complete response after 6 months. Statistically significantly higher response rates were observed in patients with diabetes mellitus and thyroid disease [odds ratio (OR) 3.49, confidence interval (CI) 1.13-10.80 and OR 6.64, CI 1.01-43.57, respectively]. Patients with solid malignancy tended to have better response (OR 4.36, CI 0.79-23.91). A higher IVIG dose was also associated with a tendency towards better response rates (OR 2.70, CI 0.84-8.63). In total, 1 (1.2%) severe adverse event (myocardial infarction with consequent death) was observed as well as three moderate adverse events, with two thromboembolic events (2.5%) and one acute kidney injury (1.2%). Other adverse events were mild or unlikely to be associated with IVIG therapy, with 14 events in 10 patients overall (12.3%).

This multicentre retrospective study shows the important role of adjunctive IVIG therapy in patients with PG with recalcitrant courses. Identifying subgroups with a higher probability of response could improve future response rates and save patients from ineffective treatment and potential adverse events.

Skin cancer is the most common cancer in the US; accurate detection can minimize morbidity and mortality.

To assess the accuracy of skin cancer diagnosis by lesion type, physician specialty and experience, and physical examination method.

PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science.

Cross-sectional and case-control studies, randomized clinical trials, and nonrandomized controlled trials that used dermatologists or primary care physicians (PCPs) to examine keratinocytic and/or melanocytic skin lesions were included.

Search terms, study objectives, and protocol methods were defined before study initiation. Data extraction was performed by a reviewer, with verification by a second reviewer. A mixed-effects model was used in the data analysis. Data analyses were performed from May 2022 to December 2023.

Meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy comprised sensitivity and specificity by physician type (primary care physician or dermatologist; experienced or inexperienced) and examination method (in-person clinical examination and/or clinical images vs dermoscopy and/or dermoscopic images).

In all, 100 studies were included in the analysis. With experienced dermatologists using clinical examination and clinical images, the sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing keratinocytic carcinomas were 79.0% and 89.1%, respectively; using dermoscopy and dermoscopic images, sensitivity and specificity were 83.7% and 87.4%, and for PCPs, 81.4% and 80.1%. Experienced dermatologists had 2.5-fold higher odds of accurate diagnosis of keratinocytic carcinomas using in-person dermoscopy and dermoscopic images compared with in-person clinical examination and images. When examining for melanoma using clinical examination and images, sensitivity and specificity were 76.9% and 89.1% for experienced dermatologists, 78.3% and 66.2% for inexperienced dermatologists, and 37.5% and 84.6% for PCPs, respectively; whereas when using dermoscopy and dermoscopic images, sensitivity and specificity were 85.7% and 81.3%, 78.0% and 69.5%, and 49.5% and 91.3%, respectively. Experienced dermatologists had 5.7-fold higher odds of accurate diagnosis of melanoma using dermoscopy compared with clinical examination. Compared with PCPs, experienced dermatologists had 13.3-fold higher odds of accurate diagnosis of melanoma using dermoscopic images.

The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis indicate that there are significant differences in diagnostic accuracy for skin cancer when comparing physician specialty and experience, and examination methods. These summary metrics of clinician diagnostic accuracy could be useful benchmarks for clinical trials, practitioner training, and the performance of emerging technologies.