Article

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires supervision of residents “provides safe and effective care to patients; ensures each resident’s development of the skills, knowledge, and attitudes required to enter the unsupervised practice of medicine; and establishes a foundation for continued professional growth.”¹ Beyond delineating supervision types (direct, indirect, or oversight), best practices for outpatient supervision are lacking, which perhaps contributes to challenges and discrepancies in experiences involving both trainees and supervisors.² In this article, I provide 6 practical recommendations for supervisors to address and overcome these challenges.

1. Don’t skip orientation

Resist the pressure to jump directly into clinical care. Devote the first supervision session to learner orientation about expectations (eg, documentation and between-visit patient outreach), logistics (eg, electronic health record or absences), clinic workflow and processes (eg, no-shows or referrals), and team members. Provide this verbally and in writing; the former fosters additional discussion and prompts questions, while the latter serves as a useful reference.

2. Plan for the end at the beginning

Plan ahead for end-of-rotation issues (eg, transfers of care or clinician sign-out), particularly because handoffs are known patient safety risks.³ Provide a written sign-out template or example, set a deadline for the first draft, and ensure known verbal sign-out occurs to both you and any trainees coming into the rotation.

3. Facilitate self-identification of strengths, weaknesses, and goals

Individual learning plans (ILPs) are a fundamental component of adult learning theory, allowing for self-directed learning and ongoing assessment by trainee and supervisor. Complete the ILP together at the beginning of the rotation and regularly devote time to revisit and revise it. This process ensures targeted feedback, which will reduce the stress and potential surprises often associated with end-of-rotation evaluations.

4. Consider the homework you assign

Be intentional about assigned readings. Consider their frequency and length, highlight where you want learners to focus, provide self-reflection questions/prompts, and take time to discuss during supervision. If you use a structured curriculum, maintain flexibility so your trainees’ interests, topics arising in real-time clinical care, and relevant in-press articles can be included.

5. Use direct observation

Whenever possible, directly observe clinical care, particularly a patient’s intake. To reduce trainee (and patient) anxiety and preserve independence, state, “I’m the attending physician supervising Dr. (NAME), who will be your doctor. We provide feedback to trainees right up to graduation so I’m here to observe and will be quiet in the background.” While direct observation is associated with early learners and inpatient settings, it is also preferred by senior outpatient psychiatry residents⁴ and associated with positive educational and patient outcomes.⁵

6. Offer supplemental experiences

If feasible, offer additional interdisciplinary supervision (eg, social workers, psychologists, or peer support), scholarly opportunities (eg, case report collaboration or clinic talk), psychotherapy cases, or meeting with patients on your case­load (eg, patients with a rare diagnosis or unique presentation). These align with ACGME’s broad supervision requirements and offer much-appreciated individualized learning tailored to the trainee.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires supervision of residents “provides safe and effective care to patients; ensures each resident’s development of the skills, knowledge, and attitudes required to enter the unsupervised practice of medicine; and establishes a foundation for continued professional growth.”¹ Beyond delineating supervision types (direct, indirect, or oversight), best practices for outpatient supervision are lacking, which perhaps contributes to challenges and discrepancies in experiences involving both trainees and supervisors.² In this article, I provide 6 practical recommendations for supervisors to address and overcome these challenges.

1. Don’t skip orientation

Resist the pressure to jump directly into clinical care. Devote the first supervision session to learner orientation about expectations (eg, documentation and between-visit patient outreach), logistics (eg, electronic health record or absences), clinic workflow and processes (eg, no-shows or referrals), and team members. Provide this verbally and in writing; the former fosters additional discussion and prompts questions, while the latter serves as a useful reference.

2. Plan for the end at the beginning

Plan ahead for end-of-rotation issues (eg, transfers of care or clinician sign-out), particularly because handoffs are known patient safety risks.³ Provide a written sign-out template or example, set a deadline for the first draft, and ensure known verbal sign-out occurs to both you and any trainees coming into the rotation.

3. Facilitate self-identification of strengths, weaknesses, and goals

Individual learning plans (ILPs) are a fundamental component of adult learning theory, allowing for self-directed learning and ongoing assessment by trainee and supervisor. Complete the ILP together at the beginning of the rotation and regularly devote time to revisit and revise it. This process ensures targeted feedback, which will reduce the stress and potential surprises often associated with end-of-rotation evaluations.

4. Consider the homework you assign

Be intentional about assigned readings. Consider their frequency and length, highlight where you want learners to focus, provide self-reflection questions/prompts, and take time to discuss during supervision. If you use a structured curriculum, maintain flexibility so your trainees’ interests, topics arising in real-time clinical care, and relevant in-press articles can be included.

5. Use direct observation

Whenever possible, directly observe clinical care, particularly a patient’s intake. To reduce trainee (and patient) anxiety and preserve independence, state, “I’m the attending physician supervising Dr. (NAME), who will be your doctor. We provide feedback to trainees right up to graduation so I’m here to observe and will be quiet in the background.” While direct observation is associated with early learners and inpatient settings, it is also preferred by senior outpatient psychiatry residents⁴ and associated with positive educational and patient outcomes.⁵

6. Offer supplemental experiences

If feasible, offer additional interdisciplinary supervision (eg, social workers, psychologists, or peer support), scholarly opportunities (eg, case report collaboration or clinic talk), psychotherapy cases, or meeting with patients on your case­load (eg, patients with a rare diagnosis or unique presentation). These align with ACGME’s broad supervision requirements and offer much-appreciated individualized learning tailored to the trainee.

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires supervision of residents “provides safe and effective care to patients; ensures each resident’s development of the skills, knowledge, and attitudes required to enter the unsupervised practice of medicine; and establishes a foundation for continued professional growth.”¹ Beyond delineating supervision types (direct, indirect, or oversight), best practices for outpatient supervision are lacking, which perhaps contributes to challenges and discrepancies in experiences involving both trainees and supervisors.² In this article, I provide 6 practical recommendations for supervisors to address and overcome these challenges.

1. Don’t skip orientation

Resist the pressure to jump directly into clinical care. Devote the first supervision session to learner orientation about expectations (eg, documentation and between-visit patient outreach), logistics (eg, electronic health record or absences), clinic workflow and processes (eg, no-shows or referrals), and team members. Provide this verbally and in writing; the former fosters additional discussion and prompts questions, while the latter serves as a useful reference.

2. Plan for the end at the beginning

Plan ahead for end-of-rotation issues (eg, transfers of care or clinician sign-out), particularly because handoffs are known patient safety risks.³ Provide a written sign-out template or example, set a deadline for the first draft, and ensure known verbal sign-out occurs to both you and any trainees coming into the rotation.

3. Facilitate self-identification of strengths, weaknesses, and goals

Individual learning plans (ILPs) are a fundamental component of adult learning theory, allowing for self-directed learning and ongoing assessment by trainee and supervisor. Complete the ILP together at the beginning of the rotation and regularly devote time to revisit and revise it. This process ensures targeted feedback, which will reduce the stress and potential surprises often associated with end-of-rotation evaluations.

4. Consider the homework you assign

Be intentional about assigned readings. Consider their frequency and length, highlight where you want learners to focus, provide self-reflection questions/prompts, and take time to discuss during supervision. If you use a structured curriculum, maintain flexibility so your trainees’ interests, topics arising in real-time clinical care, and relevant in-press articles can be included.

5. Use direct observation

Whenever possible, directly observe clinical care, particularly a patient’s intake. To reduce trainee (and patient) anxiety and preserve independence, state, “I’m the attending physician supervising Dr. (NAME), who will be your doctor. We provide feedback to trainees right up to graduation so I’m here to observe and will be quiet in the background.” While direct observation is associated with early learners and inpatient settings, it is also preferred by senior outpatient psychiatry residents⁴ and associated with positive educational and patient outcomes.⁵

6. Offer supplemental experiences

If feasible, offer additional interdisciplinary supervision (eg, social workers, psychologists, or peer support), scholarly opportunities (eg, case report collaboration or clinic talk), psychotherapy cases, or meeting with patients on your case­load (eg, patients with a rare diagnosis or unique presentation). These align with ACGME’s broad supervision requirements and offer much-appreciated individualized learning tailored to the trainee.

Clinicians of all experience levels, particularly trainees, may struggle when interviewing an individual experiencing psychosis. Many clinicians feel unsure what to say when a patient expresses fixed beliefs that are not amenable to change despite conflicting evidence, or worry about inadvertently affirming these beliefs. Supporting and empathizing with a person experiencing psychosis while avoiding reinforcing delusional beliefs is an important skillset for clinicians to have. While there is no single “correct” approach to interviewing individuals with psychosis, key principles include:

1. Do not begin by challenging delusions

People experiencing delusions often feel strongly about the validity of their beliefs and find evidence to support them. Directly challenging these beliefs from the beginning may alienate them. Instead, explore with neutral questioning: “Can you tell me more about X?” “What did you notice that made you believe Y?” Later, when rapport is established, it may be appropriate to explore discrepancies that provide insight into their delusions, a technique used in cognitive-behavioral therapy for psychosis.

2. Validate the emotion, not the psychosis

Many interviewers worry that talking about a patient’s delusions or voices will inadvertently reinforce them. Instead of agreeing with the content, listen for and empathize with the emotion (which is often fear): “That sounds frightening.” If the emotion is unclear, ask: “How did you feel when that happened?” When unsure what to say, sometimes a neutral “mmm” conveys listening without reinforcing the psychosis.

3. Explicitly state emotions and intentions

People with psychosis may have difficulty processing others’ emotions and facial expressions.¹ We recommend using verbal cues to assist them in recognizing emotions and intentions: “It makes me sad to hear how alone you felt,” or “I’m here to help you.” The interviewer may mildly “amplify” their facial expressions so that the person experiencing psychosis can more clearly identify the expressed emotion, though not all individuals with psychosis respond well to this.

4. Reflect the patient’s own words

We recommend using the patient’s exact (typically nonclinical) words in referring to their experiences to build rapport and a shared understanding of their subjective experience.² Avoid introducing clinical jargon, such as “delusion” or “hallucination.” For example, the interviewer might follow a patient’s explanation of their experiences by asking: “You heard voices in the walls—what did they say?” If the patient uses clinical jargon, the interviewer should clarify their meaning: “When you say ‘paranoid,’ what does that mean to you?”

5. Be intentional with gestures and positioning

People with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders may have difficulty interpreting gestures and are more likely to perceive gestures as self-referential.¹ We recommend minimizing gestures or using simple, neutral-to-positive movements appropriate to cultural context. For example, in the United States, hands with palms up in front of the body generally convey openness, whereas arms crossed over the chest may convey anger. We recommend that to avoid appearing confrontational, interviewers do not position themselves directly in front of the patient, instead positioning themselves at an angle. Consider mirroring patients’ gestures or postures to convey empathy and build rapport.³

Clinicians of all experience levels, particularly trainees, may struggle when interviewing an individual experiencing psychosis. Many clinicians feel unsure what to say when a patient expresses fixed beliefs that are not amenable to change despite conflicting evidence, or worry about inadvertently affirming these beliefs. Supporting and empathizing with a person experiencing psychosis while avoiding reinforcing delusional beliefs is an important skillset for clinicians to have. While there is no single “correct” approach to interviewing individuals with psychosis, key principles include:

1. Do not begin by challenging delusions

People experiencing delusions often feel strongly about the validity of their beliefs and find evidence to support them. Directly challenging these beliefs from the beginning may alienate them. Instead, explore with neutral questioning: “Can you tell me more about X?” “What did you notice that made you believe Y?” Later, when rapport is established, it may be appropriate to explore discrepancies that provide insight into their delusions, a technique used in cognitive-behavioral therapy for psychosis.

2. Validate the emotion, not the psychosis

Many interviewers worry that talking about a patient’s delusions or voices will inadvertently reinforce them. Instead of agreeing with the content, listen for and empathize with the emotion (which is often fear): “That sounds frightening.” If the emotion is unclear, ask: “How did you feel when that happened?” When unsure what to say, sometimes a neutral “mmm” conveys listening without reinforcing the psychosis.

3. Explicitly state emotions and intentions

People with psychosis may have difficulty processing others’ emotions and facial expressions.¹ We recommend using verbal cues to assist them in recognizing emotions and intentions: “It makes me sad to hear how alone you felt,” or “I’m here to help you.” The interviewer may mildly “amplify” their facial expressions so that the person experiencing psychosis can more clearly identify the expressed emotion, though not all individuals with psychosis respond well to this.

4. Reflect the patient’s own words

We recommend using the patient’s exact (typically nonclinical) words in referring to their experiences to build rapport and a shared understanding of their subjective experience.² Avoid introducing clinical jargon, such as “delusion” or “hallucination.” For example, the interviewer might follow a patient’s explanation of their experiences by asking: “You heard voices in the walls—what did they say?” If the patient uses clinical jargon, the interviewer should clarify their meaning: “When you say ‘paranoid,’ what does that mean to you?”

5. Be intentional with gestures and positioning

People with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders may have difficulty interpreting gestures and are more likely to perceive gestures as self-referential.¹ We recommend minimizing gestures or using simple, neutral-to-positive movements appropriate to cultural context. For example, in the United States, hands with palms up in front of the body generally convey openness, whereas arms crossed over the chest may convey anger. We recommend that to avoid appearing confrontational, interviewers do not position themselves directly in front of the patient, instead positioning themselves at an angle. Consider mirroring patients’ gestures or postures to convey empathy and build rapport.³

Clinicians of all experience levels, particularly trainees, may struggle when interviewing an individual experiencing psychosis. Many clinicians feel unsure what to say when a patient expresses fixed beliefs that are not amenable to change despite conflicting evidence, or worry about inadvertently affirming these beliefs. Supporting and empathizing with a person experiencing psychosis while avoiding reinforcing delusional beliefs is an important skillset for clinicians to have. While there is no single “correct” approach to interviewing individuals with psychosis, key principles include:

1. Do not begin by challenging delusions

People experiencing delusions often feel strongly about the validity of their beliefs and find evidence to support them. Directly challenging these beliefs from the beginning may alienate them. Instead, explore with neutral questioning: “Can you tell me more about X?” “What did you notice that made you believe Y?” Later, when rapport is established, it may be appropriate to explore discrepancies that provide insight into their delusions, a technique used in cognitive-behavioral therapy for psychosis.

2. Validate the emotion, not the psychosis

Many interviewers worry that talking about a patient’s delusions or voices will inadvertently reinforce them. Instead of agreeing with the content, listen for and empathize with the emotion (which is often fear): “That sounds frightening.” If the emotion is unclear, ask: “How did you feel when that happened?” When unsure what to say, sometimes a neutral “mmm” conveys listening without reinforcing the psychosis.

3. Explicitly state emotions and intentions

People with psychosis may have difficulty processing others’ emotions and facial expressions.¹ We recommend using verbal cues to assist them in recognizing emotions and intentions: “It makes me sad to hear how alone you felt,” or “I’m here to help you.” The interviewer may mildly “amplify” their facial expressions so that the person experiencing psychosis can more clearly identify the expressed emotion, though not all individuals with psychosis respond well to this.

4. Reflect the patient’s own words

We recommend using the patient’s exact (typically nonclinical) words in referring to their experiences to build rapport and a shared understanding of their subjective experience.² Avoid introducing clinical jargon, such as “delusion” or “hallucination.” For example, the interviewer might follow a patient’s explanation of their experiences by asking: “You heard voices in the walls—what did they say?” If the patient uses clinical jargon, the interviewer should clarify their meaning: “When you say ‘paranoid,’ what does that mean to you?”

5. Be intentional with gestures and positioning

People with schizophrenia-spectrum disorders may have difficulty interpreting gestures and are more likely to perceive gestures as self-referential.¹ We recommend minimizing gestures or using simple, neutral-to-positive movements appropriate to cultural context. For example, in the United States, hands with palms up in front of the body generally convey openness, whereas arms crossed over the chest may convey anger. We recommend that to avoid appearing confrontational, interviewers do not position themselves directly in front of the patient, instead positioning themselves at an angle. Consider mirroring patients’ gestures or postures to convey empathy and build rapport.³

Editor’s note: Readers’ Forum is a department for correspondence from readers that is not in response to articles published in Current Psychiatry . All submissions to Readers’ Forum undergo peer review and are subject to editing for length and style. For more information, contact [email protected].

We appreciated Dr. Nasrallah’s recent editorial¹ that implicated smartphones, social media, and video game addiction, combined with the pandemic, in causing default mode network (DMN) dysfunction. The United States Surgeon General’s May 2023 report echoed these concerns and recommended limiting the use of these platforms.² While devices are accelerants on a raging fire of mental illness, we observe a more insidious etiology that kindled the flame long before the proliferation of social media use during the pandemic. I (MZP) call this the “borderlinization” of society.

Imagine living somewhere in America that time had forgotten, where youth did not use smartphones and social media or play video games, and throughout the pandemic, people continued to congregate and socialize. These are the religious enclaves throughout New York and New Jersey that we (MZP and RLP) serve. Yet if devices were predominantly to blame for the contemporary mental health crisis, we would not expect the growing mental health problems we encounter. So, what is going on?

Over the past decade, mental health awareness has permeated all institutions of education, media, business, and government, which has increased compassion for marginalized groups. Consequently, people who may have previously silently suffered have become encouraged and supported in seeking help. That is good news. The bad news is that we have also come to pathologize, label, and attempt to treat nearly all of life’s struggles, and have been exporting mental disease around the world.³ We are losing the sense of “normal” when more than one-half of all Americans will receive a DSM diagnosis in their lifetime.⁴

Traits of borderline personality disorder (BPD)—such as abandonment fears, unstable relationships, identity disturbance, affective instability, emptiness, anger, mistrust, and dissociation⁵—that previously were seen less often are now more commonplace among our patients. These patients’ therapists have “validated” their “victimization” of “microaggressions” such that they now require “trigger warnings,” “safe spaces,” and psychiatric “diagnosis and treatment” to be able to function “normally.” These developments have also positioned parents, educators, employers, and psychiatrists, who may share “power and privilege,” to “walk on eggshells” so as not to offend newfound hypersensitivities. Interestingly, the DMN may be a major, reversible driver in BPD,⁶ a possible final common pathway that is further impaired by devices starting to creep into our communities and amplify the dysfunction.

Beyond treating individual patients, we must consider mandating time away from devices to nourish our DMN. During a 25-hour period each week, we (MZP and RLP) unplug from all forms of work and electronics, remember the past, consider the future, reflect on self and others, connect with nature, meditate, and eat mindfully—all of which are DMN functions. We call it Shabbat, which people have observed for thousands of years to process the week before and rejuvenate for the week ahead. Excluding smartphones from school premises has also been helpful⁷ and could be implemented as a nationwide commitment to the developing brains of our youth. Finally, we need to look to our profession to promote resilience over dependence, distress tolerance over avoidance, and empathic communication over “cancellation” to help heal a divisive society.

Editor’s note: Readers’ Forum is a department for correspondence from readers that is not in response to articles published in Current Psychiatry . All submissions to Readers’ Forum undergo peer review and are subject to editing for length and style. For more information, contact [email protected].

We appreciated Dr. Nasrallah’s recent editorial¹ that implicated smartphones, social media, and video game addiction, combined with the pandemic, in causing default mode network (DMN) dysfunction. The United States Surgeon General’s May 2023 report echoed these concerns and recommended limiting the use of these platforms.² While devices are accelerants on a raging fire of mental illness, we observe a more insidious etiology that kindled the flame long before the proliferation of social media use during the pandemic. I (MZP) call this the “borderlinization” of society.

Imagine living somewhere in America that time had forgotten, where youth did not use smartphones and social media or play video games, and throughout the pandemic, people continued to congregate and socialize. These are the religious enclaves throughout New York and New Jersey that we (MZP and RLP) serve. Yet if devices were predominantly to blame for the contemporary mental health crisis, we would not expect the growing mental health problems we encounter. So, what is going on?

Over the past decade, mental health awareness has permeated all institutions of education, media, business, and government, which has increased compassion for marginalized groups. Consequently, people who may have previously silently suffered have become encouraged and supported in seeking help. That is good news. The bad news is that we have also come to pathologize, label, and attempt to treat nearly all of life’s struggles, and have been exporting mental disease around the world.³ We are losing the sense of “normal” when more than one-half of all Americans will receive a DSM diagnosis in their lifetime.⁴

Traits of borderline personality disorder (BPD)—such as abandonment fears, unstable relationships, identity disturbance, affective instability, emptiness, anger, mistrust, and dissociation⁵—that previously were seen less often are now more commonplace among our patients. These patients’ therapists have “validated” their “victimization” of “microaggressions” such that they now require “trigger warnings,” “safe spaces,” and psychiatric “diagnosis and treatment” to be able to function “normally.” These developments have also positioned parents, educators, employers, and psychiatrists, who may share “power and privilege,” to “walk on eggshells” so as not to offend newfound hypersensitivities. Interestingly, the DMN may be a major, reversible driver in BPD,⁶ a possible final common pathway that is further impaired by devices starting to creep into our communities and amplify the dysfunction.

Beyond treating individual patients, we must consider mandating time away from devices to nourish our DMN. During a 25-hour period each week, we (MZP and RLP) unplug from all forms of work and electronics, remember the past, consider the future, reflect on self and others, connect with nature, meditate, and eat mindfully—all of which are DMN functions. We call it Shabbat, which people have observed for thousands of years to process the week before and rejuvenate for the week ahead. Excluding smartphones from school premises has also been helpful⁷ and could be implemented as a nationwide commitment to the developing brains of our youth. Finally, we need to look to our profession to promote resilience over dependence, distress tolerance over avoidance, and empathic communication over “cancellation” to help heal a divisive society.

Editor’s note: Readers’ Forum is a department for correspondence from readers that is not in response to articles published in Current Psychiatry . All submissions to Readers’ Forum undergo peer review and are subject to editing for length and style. For more information, contact [email protected].

We appreciated Dr. Nasrallah’s recent editorial¹ that implicated smartphones, social media, and video game addiction, combined with the pandemic, in causing default mode network (DMN) dysfunction. The United States Surgeon General’s May 2023 report echoed these concerns and recommended limiting the use of these platforms.² While devices are accelerants on a raging fire of mental illness, we observe a more insidious etiology that kindled the flame long before the proliferation of social media use during the pandemic. I (MZP) call this the “borderlinization” of society.

Imagine living somewhere in America that time had forgotten, where youth did not use smartphones and social media or play video games, and throughout the pandemic, people continued to congregate and socialize. These are the religious enclaves throughout New York and New Jersey that we (MZP and RLP) serve. Yet if devices were predominantly to blame for the contemporary mental health crisis, we would not expect the growing mental health problems we encounter. So, what is going on?

Over the past decade, mental health awareness has permeated all institutions of education, media, business, and government, which has increased compassion for marginalized groups. Consequently, people who may have previously silently suffered have become encouraged and supported in seeking help. That is good news. The bad news is that we have also come to pathologize, label, and attempt to treat nearly all of life’s struggles, and have been exporting mental disease around the world.³ We are losing the sense of “normal” when more than one-half of all Americans will receive a DSM diagnosis in their lifetime.⁴

Traits of borderline personality disorder (BPD)—such as abandonment fears, unstable relationships, identity disturbance, affective instability, emptiness, anger, mistrust, and dissociation⁵—that previously were seen less often are now more commonplace among our patients. These patients’ therapists have “validated” their “victimization” of “microaggressions” such that they now require “trigger warnings,” “safe spaces,” and psychiatric “diagnosis and treatment” to be able to function “normally.” These developments have also positioned parents, educators, employers, and psychiatrists, who may share “power and privilege,” to “walk on eggshells” so as not to offend newfound hypersensitivities. Interestingly, the DMN may be a major, reversible driver in BPD,⁶ a possible final common pathway that is further impaired by devices starting to creep into our communities and amplify the dysfunction.

Beyond treating individual patients, we must consider mandating time away from devices to nourish our DMN. During a 25-hour period each week, we (MZP and RLP) unplug from all forms of work and electronics, remember the past, consider the future, reflect on self and others, connect with nature, meditate, and eat mindfully—all of which are DMN functions. We call it Shabbat, which people have observed for thousands of years to process the week before and rejuvenate for the week ahead. Excluding smartphones from school premises has also been helpful⁷ and could be implemented as a nationwide commitment to the developing brains of our youth. Finally, we need to look to our profession to promote resilience over dependence, distress tolerance over avoidance, and empathic communication over “cancellation” to help heal a divisive society.

The persistent scars with recurrent abscesses and sinuses are indicative of advanced hidradenitis suppurativa. This painful and debilitating disease is characterized by the recurrent formation and inflammation of papules, cysts, sinuses, and scars in the axillae, inguinal folds, gluteal cleft, and inframammary folds. Pain, social isolation, depression, increased risk of substance abuse, and increased suicidality are all associated with hidradenitis suppurativa.

The disease may be graded based on severity, which can guide medical treatment options. The earliest stage appears similar to acne without significant sinus tract or scar formation and may be treated with topical therapies—including clindamycin 1% lotion or gel. When larger cysts associated with sinus tracts occur, systemic options with oral antibiotics (including doxycycline 100 mg bid for 3 months or combination clindamycin 300 mg and rifampin 300 mg, both bid for 3 months) are reasonable options. Intralesional triamcinolone in a concentration of 10 mg/mL injected directly into an inflamed cyst can provide acute relief. Severe disease is characterized by diffuse scars and sinus tracts. The TNF-alpha inhibitors adalimumab and infliximab are excellent options for severe disease that does not respond to antibiotics.

Surgical treatment may include either “deroofing” the sinuses or performing a wide excision of the whole area of involvement. Widely excised areas may be grafted, allowed to granulate, or closed if small enough. Although these options create significant wounds, patients experience good results; there is a 27% recurrence with deroofing and a 13% recurrence with wide excision.¹

This patient underwent wide local excision of both axillae and the areas of involvement were allowed to granulate. Secondary intention healing occurred over 12 weeks.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.

The persistent scars with recurrent abscesses and sinuses are indicative of advanced hidradenitis suppurativa. This painful and debilitating disease is characterized by the recurrent formation and inflammation of papules, cysts, sinuses, and scars in the axillae, inguinal folds, gluteal cleft, and inframammary folds. Pain, social isolation, depression, increased risk of substance abuse, and increased suicidality are all associated with hidradenitis suppurativa.

The disease may be graded based on severity, which can guide medical treatment options. The earliest stage appears similar to acne without significant sinus tract or scar formation and may be treated with topical therapies—including clindamycin 1% lotion or gel. When larger cysts associated with sinus tracts occur, systemic options with oral antibiotics (including doxycycline 100 mg bid for 3 months or combination clindamycin 300 mg and rifampin 300 mg, both bid for 3 months) are reasonable options. Intralesional triamcinolone in a concentration of 10 mg/mL injected directly into an inflamed cyst can provide acute relief. Severe disease is characterized by diffuse scars and sinus tracts. The TNF-alpha inhibitors adalimumab and infliximab are excellent options for severe disease that does not respond to antibiotics.

Surgical treatment may include either “deroofing” the sinuses or performing a wide excision of the whole area of involvement. Widely excised areas may be grafted, allowed to granulate, or closed if small enough. Although these options create significant wounds, patients experience good results; there is a 27% recurrence with deroofing and a 13% recurrence with wide excision.¹

This patient underwent wide local excision of both axillae and the areas of involvement were allowed to granulate. Secondary intention healing occurred over 12 weeks.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.

The persistent scars with recurrent abscesses and sinuses are indicative of advanced hidradenitis suppurativa. This painful and debilitating disease is characterized by the recurrent formation and inflammation of papules, cysts, sinuses, and scars in the axillae, inguinal folds, gluteal cleft, and inframammary folds. Pain, social isolation, depression, increased risk of substance abuse, and increased suicidality are all associated with hidradenitis suppurativa.

The disease may be graded based on severity, which can guide medical treatment options. The earliest stage appears similar to acne without significant sinus tract or scar formation and may be treated with topical therapies—including clindamycin 1% lotion or gel. When larger cysts associated with sinus tracts occur, systemic options with oral antibiotics (including doxycycline 100 mg bid for 3 months or combination clindamycin 300 mg and rifampin 300 mg, both bid for 3 months) are reasonable options. Intralesional triamcinolone in a concentration of 10 mg/mL injected directly into an inflamed cyst can provide acute relief. Severe disease is characterized by diffuse scars and sinus tracts. The TNF-alpha inhibitors adalimumab and infliximab are excellent options for severe disease that does not respond to antibiotics.

Surgical treatment may include either “deroofing” the sinuses or performing a wide excision of the whole area of involvement. Widely excised areas may be grafted, allowed to granulate, or closed if small enough. Although these options create significant wounds, patients experience good results; there is a 27% recurrence with deroofing and a 13% recurrence with wide excision.¹

This patient underwent wide local excision of both axillae and the areas of involvement were allowed to granulate. Secondary intention healing occurred over 12 weeks.

‌

Photos and text for Photo Rounds Friday courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained). Dr. Karnes is the medical director of MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME.

Flohr and colleagues present the results of a controlled trial of cyclosporine vs methotrexate for severe atopic dermatitis ("Efficacy and Safety of Ciclosporin Versus Methotrexate in the Treatment of Severe Atopic Dermatitis in Children and Young People"). Cyclosporine worked faster, yet methotrexate was a bit more effective in the long run. Both treatments had considerable side effects; 10% and 14% had serious events with cyclosporine and methotrexate, respectively. My only quibble is with the first word of the abstract background section; the authors call cyclosporine and methotrexate "conventional" systemic drugs for atopic dermatitis. At this point, considering safety and efficacy, I would consider drugs like dupilumab to be the "conventional" systemic treatment for atopic dermatitis.

Wan and colleagues ("Neuropsychiatric Disorders in Adults With Atopic Dermatitis") present an exceptionally well-done study with a huge patient population. The study compared about 600,000 adults with atopic dermatitis vs over 2,000,000 adults without the disease. A sample size like that offers a lot of power to detect very small differences between groups. The researchers report higher rates of anxiety and depression in patients with atopic dermatitis compared to those without. Are those differences clinically meaningfully different? The rates of depression were 14 and 17 cases per 1000 patient-years for those without and those with severe atopic dermatitis, respectively. That's a difference of 3 per 1000 patient-years. So maybe roughly 300 patients with atopic dermatitis would need to be seen to observe one patient with depression due to atopic dermatitis (assuming that the observed differences in rates between those with and those without atopic dermatitis were due to the dermatitis). The authors conclude, "Clinicians should inquire about mental health in patients with AD." I don't think their data support such a conclusion. We'd need to see a cost-effectiveness study to know if that's an intervention that we should do. Given the very small difference between the rates in those with and those without atopic dermatitis, it might be reasonable to conclude that we should inquire about mental health in patients with atopic dermatitis about as much as we should in patients without atopic dermatitis.

Some years ago, there was an over-the-counter topical product for psoriasis based on a banana peel extract. I think it was marketed as "FDA approved" for psoriasis (which was legal to say because the product also contained tar) and as being as effective as topical calcipotriene as published in the Journal of Investigational Dermatology (JID). I went to look for the article; the "publication" was the abstract of a poster presentation. The study followed a very small study population for a short period of time. The study was, I believe, underpowered to detect differences between the banana peel extract and the vitamin D analog. Those data were presented as a poster, the poster abstracts were printed in JID, and, voilà, the product was marketed as being as effective as topical calcipotriene as published in JID.

Sowlati and colleagues ("Efficacy and Tolerability of a Novel Topical Treatment Containing Pea Protein and Xyloglucan in the Management of Atopic Dermatitis in Children") randomly assigned 42 patients to receive either a xyloglucan/pea protein topical therapy or hydrocortisone. The participants were followed for 2 weeks. Both groups improved. We don't know whether they improved more than they would have with moisturizer. This study doesn't make me excited about prescribing the xyloglucan/pea protein topical.

The study by Mohamed and colleagues comparing tacrolimus and hydrocortisone reminds me that we have an effective generic topical anti-inflammatory for our patients with atopic dermatitis. Given the safety of topical tacrolimus, I prefer prescribing the 0.1% ointment for all my patients, though I give the lower concentration, approved for children, if the insurer makes me.

Simpson and colleagues' post hoc analysis of tralokinumab tells us that, with continued use, some patients who don't respond well initially will have greater improvement. But what I'd really like to see is a head-to-head study comparing tralokinumab vs dupilumab. Dupilumab seems to have stronger efficacy based on their reported trial numbers, but a head-to-head trial would give us greater confidence in their relative benefits.

I have trouble getting excited about this study by Cork and colleagues ("Dupilumab Safety and Efficacy in a Phase III Open-Label Extension Trial in Children 6-11 Years of Age With Severe Atopic Dermatitis"). I feel very comfortable with dupilumab already.

Flohr and colleagues present the results of a controlled trial of cyclosporine vs methotrexate for severe atopic dermatitis ("Efficacy and Safety of Ciclosporin Versus Methotrexate in the Treatment of Severe Atopic Dermatitis in Children and Young People"). Cyclosporine worked faster, yet methotrexate was a bit more effective in the long run. Both treatments had considerable side effects; 10% and 14% had serious events with cyclosporine and methotrexate, respectively. My only quibble is with the first word of the abstract background section; the authors call cyclosporine and methotrexate "conventional" systemic drugs for atopic dermatitis. At this point, considering safety and efficacy, I would consider drugs like dupilumab to be the "conventional" systemic treatment for atopic dermatitis.

Wan and colleagues ("Neuropsychiatric Disorders in Adults With Atopic Dermatitis") present an exceptionally well-done study with a huge patient population. The study compared about 600,000 adults with atopic dermatitis vs over 2,000,000 adults without the disease. A sample size like that offers a lot of power to detect very small differences between groups. The researchers report higher rates of anxiety and depression in patients with atopic dermatitis compared to those without. Are those differences clinically meaningfully different? The rates of depression were 14 and 17 cases per 1000 patient-years for those without and those with severe atopic dermatitis, respectively. That's a difference of 3 per 1000 patient-years. So maybe roughly 300 patients with atopic dermatitis would need to be seen to observe one patient with depression due to atopic dermatitis (assuming that the observed differences in rates between those with and those without atopic dermatitis were due to the dermatitis). The authors conclude, "Clinicians should inquire about mental health in patients with AD." I don't think their data support such a conclusion. We'd need to see a cost-effectiveness study to know if that's an intervention that we should do. Given the very small difference between the rates in those with and those without atopic dermatitis, it might be reasonable to conclude that we should inquire about mental health in patients with atopic dermatitis about as much as we should in patients without atopic dermatitis.

Some years ago, there was an over-the-counter topical product for psoriasis based on a banana peel extract. I think it was marketed as "FDA approved" for psoriasis (which was legal to say because the product also contained tar) and as being as effective as topical calcipotriene as published in the Journal of Investigational Dermatology (JID). I went to look for the article; the "publication" was the abstract of a poster presentation. The study followed a very small study population for a short period of time. The study was, I believe, underpowered to detect differences between the banana peel extract and the vitamin D analog. Those data were presented as a poster, the poster abstracts were printed in JID, and, voilà, the product was marketed as being as effective as topical calcipotriene as published in JID.

Sowlati and colleagues ("Efficacy and Tolerability of a Novel Topical Treatment Containing Pea Protein and Xyloglucan in the Management of Atopic Dermatitis in Children") randomly assigned 42 patients to receive either a xyloglucan/pea protein topical therapy or hydrocortisone. The participants were followed for 2 weeks. Both groups improved. We don't know whether they improved more than they would have with moisturizer. This study doesn't make me excited about prescribing the xyloglucan/pea protein topical.

The study by Mohamed and colleagues comparing tacrolimus and hydrocortisone reminds me that we have an effective generic topical anti-inflammatory for our patients with atopic dermatitis. Given the safety of topical tacrolimus, I prefer prescribing the 0.1% ointment for all my patients, though I give the lower concentration, approved for children, if the insurer makes me.

Simpson and colleagues' post hoc analysis of tralokinumab tells us that, with continued use, some patients who don't respond well initially will have greater improvement. But what I'd really like to see is a head-to-head study comparing tralokinumab vs dupilumab. Dupilumab seems to have stronger efficacy based on their reported trial numbers, but a head-to-head trial would give us greater confidence in their relative benefits.

I have trouble getting excited about this study by Cork and colleagues ("Dupilumab Safety and Efficacy in a Phase III Open-Label Extension Trial in Children 6-11 Years of Age With Severe Atopic Dermatitis"). I feel very comfortable with dupilumab already.

Flohr and colleagues present the results of a controlled trial of cyclosporine vs methotrexate for severe atopic dermatitis ("Efficacy and Safety of Ciclosporin Versus Methotrexate in the Treatment of Severe Atopic Dermatitis in Children and Young People"). Cyclosporine worked faster, yet methotrexate was a bit more effective in the long run. Both treatments had considerable side effects; 10% and 14% had serious events with cyclosporine and methotrexate, respectively. My only quibble is with the first word of the abstract background section; the authors call cyclosporine and methotrexate "conventional" systemic drugs for atopic dermatitis. At this point, considering safety and efficacy, I would consider drugs like dupilumab to be the "conventional" systemic treatment for atopic dermatitis.

Wan and colleagues ("Neuropsychiatric Disorders in Adults With Atopic Dermatitis") present an exceptionally well-done study with a huge patient population. The study compared about 600,000 adults with atopic dermatitis vs over 2,000,000 adults without the disease. A sample size like that offers a lot of power to detect very small differences between groups. The researchers report higher rates of anxiety and depression in patients with atopic dermatitis compared to those without. Are those differences clinically meaningfully different? The rates of depression were 14 and 17 cases per 1000 patient-years for those without and those with severe atopic dermatitis, respectively. That's a difference of 3 per 1000 patient-years. So maybe roughly 300 patients with atopic dermatitis would need to be seen to observe one patient with depression due to atopic dermatitis (assuming that the observed differences in rates between those with and those without atopic dermatitis were due to the dermatitis). The authors conclude, "Clinicians should inquire about mental health in patients with AD." I don't think their data support such a conclusion. We'd need to see a cost-effectiveness study to know if that's an intervention that we should do. Given the very small difference between the rates in those with and those without atopic dermatitis, it might be reasonable to conclude that we should inquire about mental health in patients with atopic dermatitis about as much as we should in patients without atopic dermatitis.

Some years ago, there was an over-the-counter topical product for psoriasis based on a banana peel extract. I think it was marketed as "FDA approved" for psoriasis (which was legal to say because the product also contained tar) and as being as effective as topical calcipotriene as published in the Journal of Investigational Dermatology (JID). I went to look for the article; the "publication" was the abstract of a poster presentation. The study followed a very small study population for a short period of time. The study was, I believe, underpowered to detect differences between the banana peel extract and the vitamin D analog. Those data were presented as a poster, the poster abstracts were printed in JID, and, voilà, the product was marketed as being as effective as topical calcipotriene as published in JID.

Sowlati and colleagues ("Efficacy and Tolerability of a Novel Topical Treatment Containing Pea Protein and Xyloglucan in the Management of Atopic Dermatitis in Children") randomly assigned 42 patients to receive either a xyloglucan/pea protein topical therapy or hydrocortisone. The participants were followed for 2 weeks. Both groups improved. We don't know whether they improved more than they would have with moisturizer. This study doesn't make me excited about prescribing the xyloglucan/pea protein topical.

The study by Mohamed and colleagues comparing tacrolimus and hydrocortisone reminds me that we have an effective generic topical anti-inflammatory for our patients with atopic dermatitis. Given the safety of topical tacrolimus, I prefer prescribing the 0.1% ointment for all my patients, though I give the lower concentration, approved for children, if the insurer makes me.

Simpson and colleagues' post hoc analysis of tralokinumab tells us that, with continued use, some patients who don't respond well initially will have greater improvement. But what I'd really like to see is a head-to-head study comparing tralokinumab vs dupilumab. Dupilumab seems to have stronger efficacy based on their reported trial numbers, but a head-to-head trial would give us greater confidence in their relative benefits.

I have trouble getting excited about this study by Cork and colleagues ("Dupilumab Safety and Efficacy in a Phase III Open-Label Extension Trial in Children 6-11 Years of Age With Severe Atopic Dermatitis"). I feel very comfortable with dupilumab already.

Key abstracts on multiple sclerosis treatment from the 2023 European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis–Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS) meeting are reported by Dr Ellen Mowry of Johns Hopkins University.

Dr Mowry begins with a convenient alternative method of drug administration in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). The phase 3 OCARINA II randomized trial showed promising results in safety and efficacy of subcutaneous ocrelizumab vs traditional longer intravenous infusion. Ocrelizumab is pending US Food and Drug Administration approval.

Next, Dr Mowry highlights two studies that examined known increased risks associated with anti-CD20 therapies. Dr Mowry discusses the importance of continued research into monitoring immunoglobin levels to determine dose escalation or extended interval dosing in patients with MS.

She then discusses the NEXT MS trial that looked at personalized dosing of natalizumab. The interim data indicate a dosing schedule that aims to maintain blood levels of the drug above a certain threshold appears as effective in controlling disease activity in relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) as the approved 4-week dosing schedule.

Finally, Dr Mowry discusses a phase 2 randomized trial of the gold nanoparticle CNM-Au8, which has been used to treat other autoimmune diseases, to determine its potential benefits in RRMS.

--

Ellen Mowry, MD, MCR, Professor of Neurology & Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland

Ellen Mowry, MD, MCR, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as a consultant for: BeCareLink, LLC

Received research grant from: Biogen; Genentech

Received royalties from: UpToDate

Key abstracts on multiple sclerosis treatment from the 2023 European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis–Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS) meeting are reported by Dr Ellen Mowry of Johns Hopkins University.

Dr Mowry begins with a convenient alternative method of drug administration in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). The phase 3 OCARINA II randomized trial showed promising results in safety and efficacy of subcutaneous ocrelizumab vs traditional longer intravenous infusion. Ocrelizumab is pending US Food and Drug Administration approval.

Next, Dr Mowry highlights two studies that examined known increased risks associated with anti-CD20 therapies. Dr Mowry discusses the importance of continued research into monitoring immunoglobin levels to determine dose escalation or extended interval dosing in patients with MS.

She then discusses the NEXT MS trial that looked at personalized dosing of natalizumab. The interim data indicate a dosing schedule that aims to maintain blood levels of the drug above a certain threshold appears as effective in controlling disease activity in relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) as the approved 4-week dosing schedule.

Finally, Dr Mowry discusses a phase 2 randomized trial of the gold nanoparticle CNM-Au8, which has been used to treat other autoimmune diseases, to determine its potential benefits in RRMS.

--

Ellen Mowry, MD, MCR, Professor of Neurology & Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland

Ellen Mowry, MD, MCR, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as a consultant for: BeCareLink, LLC

Received research grant from: Biogen; Genentech

Received royalties from: UpToDate

Key abstracts on multiple sclerosis treatment from the 2023 European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis–Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS) meeting are reported by Dr Ellen Mowry of Johns Hopkins University.

Dr Mowry begins with a convenient alternative method of drug administration in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). The phase 3 OCARINA II randomized trial showed promising results in safety and efficacy of subcutaneous ocrelizumab vs traditional longer intravenous infusion. Ocrelizumab is pending US Food and Drug Administration approval.

Next, Dr Mowry highlights two studies that examined known increased risks associated with anti-CD20 therapies. Dr Mowry discusses the importance of continued research into monitoring immunoglobin levels to determine dose escalation or extended interval dosing in patients with MS.

She then discusses the NEXT MS trial that looked at personalized dosing of natalizumab. The interim data indicate a dosing schedule that aims to maintain blood levels of the drug above a certain threshold appears as effective in controlling disease activity in relapsing-remitting MS (RRMS) as the approved 4-week dosing schedule.

Finally, Dr Mowry discusses a phase 2 randomized trial of the gold nanoparticle CNM-Au8, which has been used to treat other autoimmune diseases, to determine its potential benefits in RRMS.

--

Ellen Mowry, MD, MCR, Professor of Neurology & Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland

Ellen Mowry, MD, MCR, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships:

Serve(d) as a consultant for: BeCareLink, LLC

Received research grant from: Biogen; Genentech

Received royalties from: UpToDate

The Diagnosis: Reactive Perforating Collagenosis

Reactive perforating collagenosis (RPC) is the most common type of primary perforating dermatosis and is characterized by the transepithelial elimination of collagen from the dermis. Although familial RPC usually presents in infancy or early childhood, the acquired form has a strong association with type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic renal disease. Up to 10% of hemodialysis patients develop RPC.¹ Patients with RPC develop red-brown, umbilicated, papulonodular lesions, often with a central keratotic crust and erythematous halo. The lesions are variable in shape and size (typically up to 10 mm in diameter) and commonly are located on the trunk or extensor aspects of the limbs. Pruritus is the primary concern, and the Koebner phenomenon commonly is seen.²

Although the histopathology can vary depending on the stage of the lesion, an invaginating epidermal process with prominent epidermal hyperplasia surrounding a central plug of keratin, basophilic inflammatory debris, and degenerated collagen are findings indicative of RPC. At the base of the invagination, the altered collagen perforates through the epidermis by the process of transepidermal elimination.³ Trichrome stains can highlight the collagen, while Verhoeff–van Gieson staining is negative (no elastic fiber elimination). Anecdotal reports have described a variety of successful therapies including retinoids, allopurinol, doxycycline, dupilumab, and phototherapy, with phototherapy being especially effective in patients with coexistent renal disease.^4-8 Our patient was started on dupilumab 300 mg every other week and triamcinolone cream 0.1% twice daily (Monday through Friday) for itchy areas. The efficacy of the treatment was to be assessed at the next visit.

Elastosis perforans serpiginosa (EPS) is a rare skin disease that presents as small papules arranged in serpiginous or annular patterns on the neck, face, arms, or other flexural areas in early adulthood. It more commonly is seen in males and can be associated with other inherited disorders such as Down syndrome, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, and Marfan syndrome. In rare instances, EPS has been linked to D-penicillamine.⁹ Elastosis perforans serpiginosa is characterized by focal dermal elastosis and transepithelial elimination of abnormal elastic fibers instead of collagen. The formation of narrow channels extending upward from the dermis in straight or corkscrew patterns commonly is seen (Figure 1). The dermis also may contain a chronic inflammatory infiltrate consisting of lymphocytes, macrophages, or multinucleated giant cells.¹⁰ Verhoeff– van Gieson stain highlights the altered elastic fibers in the papillary dermis.

Prurigo nodularis involves chronic, intensely pruritic, lichenified, excoriated nodules that often present as grouped symmetric lesions predominantly on the extensor aspects of the distal extremities and occasionally the trunk. Histologically, prurigo nodularis appears similar to lichen simplex chronicus but in a nodular form with pronounced hyperkeratosis and acanthosis, sometimes to the degree of pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia (Figure 2).¹¹ Its features may resemble chronic eczema with mild spongiosis and focal parakeratosis. In the dermis, there is vascular hyperplasia surrounded by perivascular inflammatory infiltrates. Immunohistochemical staining for calcitonin gene-related peptide and substance P may show a large increase of immunoreactive nerves in the lesional skin of nodular prurigo patients compared to the lichenified skin of eczema patients.¹² However, neural hyperplasia is not a diagnostic prerequisite in prurigo nodularis.¹³ Rarely, hyperplasic nerve trunks associated with Schwann cell proliferation may give rise to small neuromata that can be detected on electron microscopy.¹⁴ Screening for underlying systemic disease is recommended to rule out cancer, liver disease, chronic kidney disease, thyroid disorders, or HIV.

Ecthyma can affect children, adults, and especially immunocompromised patients at sites of trauma that allow entry of Streptococcus pyogenes or Staphylococcus aureus. Histologically, there is ulceration of the epidermis with a thick overlying inflammatory crust (Figure 3). The heavy infiltrate of neutrophils in the reticular dermis forms the base of the ulcer, and gram-positive cocci may be detected within the inflammatory crust. Ecthyma lesions may resemble the excoriations and shallow ulcers that are seen in a variety of other pruritic conditions.¹⁵

Pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta is a T-cell–mediated disease that is characterized by crops of lesions in varying sizes and stages including vesicular, hemorrhagic, ulcerated, and necrotic. It often results in varioliform scarring. Histologic findings can include parakeratosis, lichenoid inflammation, extravasation of red blood cells, vasculitis, and apoptotic keratinocytes (Figure 4).¹⁶

The Diagnosis: Reactive Perforating Collagenosis

Reactive perforating collagenosis (RPC) is the most common type of primary perforating dermatosis and is characterized by the transepithelial elimination of collagen from the dermis. Although familial RPC usually presents in infancy or early childhood, the acquired form has a strong association with type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic renal disease. Up to 10% of hemodialysis patients develop RPC.¹ Patients with RPC develop red-brown, umbilicated, papulonodular lesions, often with a central keratotic crust and erythematous halo. The lesions are variable in shape and size (typically up to 10 mm in diameter) and commonly are located on the trunk or extensor aspects of the limbs. Pruritus is the primary concern, and the Koebner phenomenon commonly is seen.²

Although the histopathology can vary depending on the stage of the lesion, an invaginating epidermal process with prominent epidermal hyperplasia surrounding a central plug of keratin, basophilic inflammatory debris, and degenerated collagen are findings indicative of RPC. At the base of the invagination, the altered collagen perforates through the epidermis by the process of transepidermal elimination.³ Trichrome stains can highlight the collagen, while Verhoeff–van Gieson staining is negative (no elastic fiber elimination). Anecdotal reports have described a variety of successful therapies including retinoids, allopurinol, doxycycline, dupilumab, and phototherapy, with phototherapy being especially effective in patients with coexistent renal disease.^4-8 Our patient was started on dupilumab 300 mg every other week and triamcinolone cream 0.1% twice daily (Monday through Friday) for itchy areas. The efficacy of the treatment was to be assessed at the next visit.

Elastosis perforans serpiginosa (EPS) is a rare skin disease that presents as small papules arranged in serpiginous or annular patterns on the neck, face, arms, or other flexural areas in early adulthood. It more commonly is seen in males and can be associated with other inherited disorders such as Down syndrome, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, and Marfan syndrome. In rare instances, EPS has been linked to D-penicillamine.⁹ Elastosis perforans serpiginosa is characterized by focal dermal elastosis and transepithelial elimination of abnormal elastic fibers instead of collagen. The formation of narrow channels extending upward from the dermis in straight or corkscrew patterns commonly is seen (Figure 1). The dermis also may contain a chronic inflammatory infiltrate consisting of lymphocytes, macrophages, or multinucleated giant cells.¹⁰ Verhoeff– van Gieson stain highlights the altered elastic fibers in the papillary dermis.

Prurigo nodularis involves chronic, intensely pruritic, lichenified, excoriated nodules that often present as grouped symmetric lesions predominantly on the extensor aspects of the distal extremities and occasionally the trunk. Histologically, prurigo nodularis appears similar to lichen simplex chronicus but in a nodular form with pronounced hyperkeratosis and acanthosis, sometimes to the degree of pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia (Figure 2).¹¹ Its features may resemble chronic eczema with mild spongiosis and focal parakeratosis. In the dermis, there is vascular hyperplasia surrounded by perivascular inflammatory infiltrates. Immunohistochemical staining for calcitonin gene-related peptide and substance P may show a large increase of immunoreactive nerves in the lesional skin of nodular prurigo patients compared to the lichenified skin of eczema patients.¹² However, neural hyperplasia is not a diagnostic prerequisite in prurigo nodularis.¹³ Rarely, hyperplasic nerve trunks associated with Schwann cell proliferation may give rise to small neuromata that can be detected on electron microscopy.¹⁴ Screening for underlying systemic disease is recommended to rule out cancer, liver disease, chronic kidney disease, thyroid disorders, or HIV.

Ecthyma can affect children, adults, and especially immunocompromised patients at sites of trauma that allow entry of Streptococcus pyogenes or Staphylococcus aureus. Histologically, there is ulceration of the epidermis with a thick overlying inflammatory crust (Figure 3). The heavy infiltrate of neutrophils in the reticular dermis forms the base of the ulcer, and gram-positive cocci may be detected within the inflammatory crust. Ecthyma lesions may resemble the excoriations and shallow ulcers that are seen in a variety of other pruritic conditions.¹⁵

Pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta is a T-cell–mediated disease that is characterized by crops of lesions in varying sizes and stages including vesicular, hemorrhagic, ulcerated, and necrotic. It often results in varioliform scarring. Histologic findings can include parakeratosis, lichenoid inflammation, extravasation of red blood cells, vasculitis, and apoptotic keratinocytes (Figure 4).¹⁶

The Diagnosis: Reactive Perforating Collagenosis

Reactive perforating collagenosis (RPC) is the most common type of primary perforating dermatosis and is characterized by the transepithelial elimination of collagen from the dermis. Although familial RPC usually presents in infancy or early childhood, the acquired form has a strong association with type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic renal disease. Up to 10% of hemodialysis patients develop RPC.¹ Patients with RPC develop red-brown, umbilicated, papulonodular lesions, often with a central keratotic crust and erythematous halo. The lesions are variable in shape and size (typically up to 10 mm in diameter) and commonly are located on the trunk or extensor aspects of the limbs. Pruritus is the primary concern, and the Koebner phenomenon commonly is seen.²

Although the histopathology can vary depending on the stage of the lesion, an invaginating epidermal process with prominent epidermal hyperplasia surrounding a central plug of keratin, basophilic inflammatory debris, and degenerated collagen are findings indicative of RPC. At the base of the invagination, the altered collagen perforates through the epidermis by the process of transepidermal elimination.³ Trichrome stains can highlight the collagen, while Verhoeff–van Gieson staining is negative (no elastic fiber elimination). Anecdotal reports have described a variety of successful therapies including retinoids, allopurinol, doxycycline, dupilumab, and phototherapy, with phototherapy being especially effective in patients with coexistent renal disease.^4-8 Our patient was started on dupilumab 300 mg every other week and triamcinolone cream 0.1% twice daily (Monday through Friday) for itchy areas. The efficacy of the treatment was to be assessed at the next visit.

Elastosis perforans serpiginosa (EPS) is a rare skin disease that presents as small papules arranged in serpiginous or annular patterns on the neck, face, arms, or other flexural areas in early adulthood. It more commonly is seen in males and can be associated with other inherited disorders such as Down syndrome, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, and Marfan syndrome. In rare instances, EPS has been linked to D-penicillamine.⁹ Elastosis perforans serpiginosa is characterized by focal dermal elastosis and transepithelial elimination of abnormal elastic fibers instead of collagen. The formation of narrow channels extending upward from the dermis in straight or corkscrew patterns commonly is seen (Figure 1). The dermis also may contain a chronic inflammatory infiltrate consisting of lymphocytes, macrophages, or multinucleated giant cells.¹⁰ Verhoeff– van Gieson stain highlights the altered elastic fibers in the papillary dermis.

Prurigo nodularis involves chronic, intensely pruritic, lichenified, excoriated nodules that often present as grouped symmetric lesions predominantly on the extensor aspects of the distal extremities and occasionally the trunk. Histologically, prurigo nodularis appears similar to lichen simplex chronicus but in a nodular form with pronounced hyperkeratosis and acanthosis, sometimes to the degree of pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia (Figure 2).¹¹ Its features may resemble chronic eczema with mild spongiosis and focal parakeratosis. In the dermis, there is vascular hyperplasia surrounded by perivascular inflammatory infiltrates. Immunohistochemical staining for calcitonin gene-related peptide and substance P may show a large increase of immunoreactive nerves in the lesional skin of nodular prurigo patients compared to the lichenified skin of eczema patients.¹² However, neural hyperplasia is not a diagnostic prerequisite in prurigo nodularis.¹³ Rarely, hyperplasic nerve trunks associated with Schwann cell proliferation may give rise to small neuromata that can be detected on electron microscopy.¹⁴ Screening for underlying systemic disease is recommended to rule out cancer, liver disease, chronic kidney disease, thyroid disorders, or HIV.

Ecthyma can affect children, adults, and especially immunocompromised patients at sites of trauma that allow entry of Streptococcus pyogenes or Staphylococcus aureus. Histologically, there is ulceration of the epidermis with a thick overlying inflammatory crust (Figure 3). The heavy infiltrate of neutrophils in the reticular dermis forms the base of the ulcer, and gram-positive cocci may be detected within the inflammatory crust. Ecthyma lesions may resemble the excoriations and shallow ulcers that are seen in a variety of other pruritic conditions.¹⁵

Pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta is a T-cell–mediated disease that is characterized by crops of lesions in varying sizes and stages including vesicular, hemorrhagic, ulcerated, and necrotic. It often results in varioliform scarring. Histologic findings can include parakeratosis, lichenoid inflammation, extravasation of red blood cells, vasculitis, and apoptotic keratinocytes (Figure 4).¹⁶

Beauty has been a topic of interest for centuries. Treatments and technologies have advanced, and more women are utilizing cosmetic procedures than ever before, especially neuromodulators, minimally invasive procedures, and topical treatments.¹ Over the last decade, there was a 99% increase in minimally invasive cosmetic procedures in the United States.² There also has been an observable increase in the utilization of cosmetic procedures by Black patients in recent years; the American Society of Plastic Surgeons reported that the number of cosmetic plastic surgery procedures performed on “ethnic patients” (referring to Asian, Black, or Hispanic patients) increased 243% from 2000 to 2013,³ possibly attributed to increased accessibility, awareness of procedures due to social media, cultural acceptance, and affordability. Minimally invasive procedures are considerably less expensive than major surgical procedures and are becoming progressively more affordable, with numerous financing options available.² Additionally, neuromodulators and fillers are now commonly administered by nonaesthetic health professionals including dentists and nurses, which has increased accessibility of these procedures among patients who typically may not seek out a consultation with a plastic surgeon or dermatologist.⁴

When examining the most common cosmetic procedures collectively sought out by patients with skin of color (SOC), it has been found that an even skin tone is a highly desirable feature that impacts the selection of products and procedures in this particular patient population.⁵ Black, Hispanic, and Asian women report fewer signs of facial aging compared to White women in the glabellar lines, crow’s-feet, oral commissures, perioral lines, and lips.⁶ Increased melanocytes in darker skin types help prevent photoaging but also increase susceptibility to dyschromia. Prior studies have reported the most common concerns by patients with SOC are dyschromic disorders such as postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, postinflammatory hypopigmentation, and melasma.⁷ Common minimally invasive cosmetic procedures utilized by the SOC population include chemical peels, laser treatments, and injectables. Fillers are utilized more for volume loss in SOC patients rather than for the deep furrows and rhytides commonly seen in the lower face of White patients.⁸

We conducted a survey among Black women currently residing in the United States to better understand attitudes toward beauty and aging as well as the utilization of minimally invasive cosmetic procedures in this patient population.

Methods

An in-depth questionnaire comprised of 17 questions was created for this cross-sectional observational study. The study was submitted to and deemed exempt by the institutional review board at the University of Miami (Miami, Florida)(IRB #20211184). Survey participants primarily were recruited via social media posts on personal profiles of Black dermatologists, medical residents, and medicalstudents, including the authors, targeting Black women in the United States. Utilizing a method called snowball sampling, whereby study participants are used to recruit future participants, individuals were instructed to share the survey with their social network to assist with survey distribution. After participants provided informed consent, data were captured using the REDCap secure online data collection software. The questionnaire was structured to include a sociodemographic profile of respondents, attitudes toward beauty and aging, current usage of beauty products, prior utilization of cosmetic procedures, and intentions to use cosmetic procedures in the future. Surveys with incomplete consent forms, incomplete responses, and duplicate responses, as well as surveys from participants who were not residing in the United States at the time of survey completion, were excluded.

Data characteristics were summarized by frequency and percentage. A χ² test was performed to compare participants’ age demographics with their attitudes toward beauty and aging, utilization of cosmetic procedures, and intention to try cosmetic procedures in the future. The Fisher exact test was used instead of the χ² test when the expected cell count was less than 5. For all tests, P<.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software version 28.

Results

General Characteristics of Participants—A sample of 475 self-identified Black women aged 21 to 70 years participated in the study, and 352 eligible participants were included in the final analysis. Of the 352 eligible participants, 48.3% were aged 21 to 30 years, 47.2% were aged 31 to 40 years, and 4.5% were aged 41 to 50 years. All survey participants identified their race as Black; among them, 4% specified Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, and 9% indicated that they held multiracial identities including White/Caucasian, Asian, and Native American backgrounds. Regarding the participants’ citizenship status, 54.3% reported that both they and their parents were born in the United States; 2.3% were not US citizens or permanent residents, 13.1% identified as first-generation Americans (born outside of the United States), and 30.4% identified as second-generation Americans (one or both parents born outside of the United States). Participant education levels (based on highest level) varied greatly: 4.5% were high school graduates, 1.1% attended trade or technical schools, 3.4% had associate’s degrees, 39.8% had bachelor’s degrees, 35.2% had master’s degrees, and 15.9% had doctorate degrees. Regarding household income, 6.3% earned less than $25,000 per year, 16.8% earned from $25,000 to $99,999, 75.6% earned from $100,000 to $499,999, and 1.4% earned $500,000 or more. Patient demographics are provided in Table 1.

Cosmetic Skin Concerns—The top 3 aging skin concerns among participants were fine lines and wrinkles (51.9%), dark circles (33.8%), and uneven skin tone (31.8%) (Table 2). Approximately 5.4% of participants reported no desire to avoid the natural aging process. Among age groups, fine lines and wrinkles were a major concern for 51.7% of 21- to 30-year-olds, 47.6% of 31- to 40-year-olds, and 43.5% of 41- to 50-year-olds. Dark circles were a major concern for 61.3% of 21- to 30-year-olds, 44.4% of 31- to 40-year-olds, and 46.8% of 41- to 50-year-olds. Uneven skin tone was a major concern for 56.2% of 21- to 30-year-olds, 46.5% of 31- to 40-year-olds, and 31.2% of 41- to 50-year-olds. There was no statistically significant association between participants’ age and their concern with aging skin concerns.

Differences in Experience and Acceptance of Cosmetic Procedures—Regarding participants’ prior experience with cosmetic procedures, 22.3% had tried 1 or more procedures. Additionally, 67.0% reported having intentions of trying cosmetic procedures in the future, while 10.8% reported no intentions. Of those who were uninterested in trying cosmetic procedures, 78.9% (30/38) believed it unnecessary while 47.3% (18/38) reported a fear of looking unnatural. Other perceived deterrents to cosmetic procedures among this subset of participants were the need to repeat treatment for lasting results (28.9% [11/38]), too expensive (31.6% [12/38]), and fear of side effects (39.5% [15/38]). A significant difference was found between participants’ age and their experience with cosmetic procedures (P=.020). Participants aged 21 to 30 years reported they were more likely to want to try cosmetic procedures in the future. Participants aged 31 to 40 years were more likely to have already tried a cosmetic procedure. Participants aged 41 to 50 years were more likely to report no desire to try cosmetic procedures in the future. There was no significant difference in cosmetic procedure acceptance according to citizenship status, education level, or household income.

Differences in Cosmetic Procedure Experience—Study participants indicated awareness of typically practiced cosmetic procedures. Of the 78 participants who have tried cosmetic procedures (Figure 1), the most common were laser hair removal (46.2% [36/78]), chemical peels (37.2% [29/78]), and microdermabrasion (24.4% [19/78])(Table 2). Age significantly influenced the type of cosmetic procedures utilized by participants (P<.001). Laser hair removal was the most common cosmetic procedure utilized by participants aged 21 to 30 years (64.7%) and chemical peels in participants aged 31 to 40 years (47.8%); participants aged 41 to 50 years reported equal use of chemical peels (50.0%) and microdermabrasion (50.0%).

Two hundred thirty-six participants reported interest in trying cosmetic procedures, specifically laser hair removal (57.6%), chemical peels (51.7%), and neuromodulators (41.9%)(Table 2). Although not statistically significant, age appeared to influence interest levels in cosmetic procedures. Participants aged 21 to 30 years and 31 to 40 years were most interested in trying laser hair removal (60.7% and 58.3%, respectively). Participants aged 41 to 50 years were most interested in trying neuromodulators (36.4%). There was no significant association between age and intention to try neuromodulators, chemical peels, or laser hair removal.

Attitudes Toward Beauty—Approximately 40.6% of participants believed that peak beauty occurs when women reach their 20s, and 38.6% believed that peak beauty occurs when women reach their 30s. Participants’ strategies for maintaining beauty were assessed through their regular use of certain skin care products. The most frequently used skin care products were face wash or cleanser (92.6%), moisturizer (90.1%), lip balm (76.1%), and facial sunscreen (62.2%). Other commonly used items were serum (34.7%), toner (34.9%), topical vitamin C (33.2%), and retinol/retinoid products (33.0%). Only 2.3% of participants reported not using any skin care products regularly.

Perceptions of Aging—Concerning perceived external age, most respondents believed they looked younger than their true age (69.9%); 24.4% believed they looked their true age, and 5.7% believed they looked older. Perception of age also varied considerably by age group, though most believed they looked younger than their true age.

Comment

This survey helped to identify trends in cosmetic procedure acceptance and utilization in Black women. As expected, younger Black women were more receptive to cosmetic procedures, which was consistent with a recent finding that cosmetic procedures tend to be more widely accepted among younger generations overall.⁸ Participants aged 21 to 30 years had greater intentions to try a cosmetic procedure, while those aged 31 to 40 years were more likely to have tried 1 or more cosmetic procedures already, which may be because they are just beginning to see the signs of aging and are motivated to address these concerns. Additionally, women in this age group may be more likely to have a stable source of income and be able to afford these procedures. It is important to note that the population surveyed had a much higher reported household income than the average Black household income, with most respondents reporting an average annual income of $100,000 to $499,000. Our data also showed a trend toward greater acceptance and utilization of cosmetic procedures in those with higher levels of income, though the results were not statistically significant.

Respondents were most concerned about fine lines and wrinkles, followed by dark circles and uneven skin tone. One report in the literature (N=2000) indicated that the most common cosmetic concerns in women with SOC were hyperpigmentation/dark spots (86%) and blotchy or uneven skin (80%).⁹ Interestingly, sunscreen was one of the more commonly used products in our survey, which historically has not been the case among individuals with SOC¹⁰ and suggests that the attitudes and perceptions of SOC patients are changing to favor more frequent sunscreen use, at least among the younger generations. Because we did not specify moisturizer vs moisturizer with sun protection factor, the use of facial sunscreen may even be underestimated in our survey.

Compared to cosmetic surgery or dermal fillers, the procedures found to be most frequently utilized in our study population—microdermabrasion, chemical peels, and laser hair removal—are less invasive and fairly accessible with minimal downtime. An interesting topic for further research would be to investigate how the willingness of women to openly share their cosmetic procedure usage has changed over time. The rise of social media and influencer culture has undoubtedly had an impact on the sharing of such information. It also would have been interesting to ask participants where they receive the majority of their health/beauty information.

All skin types are susceptible to photoaging; however, melanin is known to have a natural photoprotective effect, resulting in a lesser degree and later onset of photoaging in patients with darker vs lighter skin.¹¹ It has been reported that individuals with SOC show signs of facial aging on average a decade later than those with lighter skin tones,¹² which may be why the majority of participants believed they look younger than they truly are. As expected, dyspigmentation was among the top skin concerns in our study population. Although melanin does offer some degree of protection against UVA and UVB, melanocyte lability with inflammation may make darker skin types more susceptible to pigmentary issues.¹³

Study Limitations—The income levels of our study population were not representative of typical Black American households, which is a limitation. Seventy-seven percent of our study population earned more than $100,000 annually, while only 18% of Black American households earned more than $100,000 in 2019.¹⁴ Another major limitation of our study was the lack of representation from older generations, as most participants were aged 21 to 40 years, which was expected, as it is the younger generation who typically is targeted by a snowball sampling method primarily shared through social media. Additionally, because participants were recruited from the social media profiles of medical professionals, followers of these accounts may be more interested in cosmetic procedures, skewing the study results. Finally, because geographic location was not captured in our initial data collection, we were unable to determine if results from a particular location within the United States were overrepresented in the data set.

Conclusion

Although the discourse around beauty and antiaging is constantly evolving, data about Black women frequently are underrepresented in the literature. The results of this study highlight the changing attitudes and perceptions of Black women regarding beauty, aging, and minimally invasive cosmetic procedures. Dermatologists should stay abreast of current trends in this population to be able to make appropriate, culturally sensitive recommendations to their Black patients—for example, pointing them to sunscreen brands that are best suited for darker skin.

Beauty has been a topic of interest for centuries. Treatments and technologies have advanced, and more women are utilizing cosmetic procedures than ever before, especially neuromodulators, minimally invasive procedures, and topical treatments.¹ Over the last decade, there was a 99% increase in minimally invasive cosmetic procedures in the United States.² There also has been an observable increase in the utilization of cosmetic procedures by Black patients in recent years; the American Society of Plastic Surgeons reported that the number of cosmetic plastic surgery procedures performed on “ethnic patients” (referring to Asian, Black, or Hispanic patients) increased 243% from 2000 to 2013,³ possibly attributed to increased accessibility, awareness of procedures due to social media, cultural acceptance, and affordability. Minimally invasive procedures are considerably less expensive than major surgical procedures and are becoming progressively more affordable, with numerous financing options available.² Additionally, neuromodulators and fillers are now commonly administered by nonaesthetic health professionals including dentists and nurses, which has increased accessibility of these procedures among patients who typically may not seek out a consultation with a plastic surgeon or dermatologist.⁴

When examining the most common cosmetic procedures collectively sought out by patients with skin of color (SOC), it has been found that an even skin tone is a highly desirable feature that impacts the selection of products and procedures in this particular patient population.⁵ Black, Hispanic, and Asian women report fewer signs of facial aging compared to White women in the glabellar lines, crow’s-feet, oral commissures, perioral lines, and lips.⁶ Increased melanocytes in darker skin types help prevent photoaging but also increase susceptibility to dyschromia. Prior studies have reported the most common concerns by patients with SOC are dyschromic disorders such as postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, postinflammatory hypopigmentation, and melasma.⁷ Common minimally invasive cosmetic procedures utilized by the SOC population include chemical peels, laser treatments, and injectables. Fillers are utilized more for volume loss in SOC patients rather than for the deep furrows and rhytides commonly seen in the lower face of White patients.⁸

We conducted a survey among Black women currently residing in the United States to better understand attitudes toward beauty and aging as well as the utilization of minimally invasive cosmetic procedures in this patient population.

Methods

An in-depth questionnaire comprised of 17 questions was created for this cross-sectional observational study. The study was submitted to and deemed exempt by the institutional review board at the University of Miami (Miami, Florida)(IRB #20211184). Survey participants primarily were recruited via social media posts on personal profiles of Black dermatologists, medical residents, and medicalstudents, including the authors, targeting Black women in the United States. Utilizing a method called snowball sampling, whereby study participants are used to recruit future participants, individuals were instructed to share the survey with their social network to assist with survey distribution. After participants provided informed consent, data were captured using the REDCap secure online data collection software. The questionnaire was structured to include a sociodemographic profile of respondents, attitudes toward beauty and aging, current usage of beauty products, prior utilization of cosmetic procedures, and intentions to use cosmetic procedures in the future. Surveys with incomplete consent forms, incomplete responses, and duplicate responses, as well as surveys from participants who were not residing in the United States at the time of survey completion, were excluded.

Data characteristics were summarized by frequency and percentage. A χ² test was performed to compare participants’ age demographics with their attitudes toward beauty and aging, utilization of cosmetic procedures, and intention to try cosmetic procedures in the future. The Fisher exact test was used instead of the χ² test when the expected cell count was less than 5. For all tests, P<.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software version 28.

Results

General Characteristics of Participants—A sample of 475 self-identified Black women aged 21 to 70 years participated in the study, and 352 eligible participants were included in the final analysis. Of the 352 eligible participants, 48.3% were aged 21 to 30 years, 47.2% were aged 31 to 40 years, and 4.5% were aged 41 to 50 years. All survey participants identified their race as Black; among them, 4% specified Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, and 9% indicated that they held multiracial identities including White/Caucasian, Asian, and Native American backgrounds. Regarding the participants’ citizenship status, 54.3% reported that both they and their parents were born in the United States; 2.3% were not US citizens or permanent residents, 13.1% identified as first-generation Americans (born outside of the United States), and 30.4% identified as second-generation Americans (one or both parents born outside of the United States). Participant education levels (based on highest level) varied greatly: 4.5% were high school graduates, 1.1% attended trade or technical schools, 3.4% had associate’s degrees, 39.8% had bachelor’s degrees, 35.2% had master’s degrees, and 15.9% had doctorate degrees. Regarding household income, 6.3% earned less than $25,000 per year, 16.8% earned from $25,000 to $99,999, 75.6% earned from $100,000 to $499,999, and 1.4% earned $500,000 or more. Patient demographics are provided in Table 1.

Cosmetic Skin Concerns—The top 3 aging skin concerns among participants were fine lines and wrinkles (51.9%), dark circles (33.8%), and uneven skin tone (31.8%) (Table 2). Approximately 5.4% of participants reported no desire to avoid the natural aging process. Among age groups, fine lines and wrinkles were a major concern for 51.7% of 21- to 30-year-olds, 47.6% of 31- to 40-year-olds, and 43.5% of 41- to 50-year-olds. Dark circles were a major concern for 61.3% of 21- to 30-year-olds, 44.4% of 31- to 40-year-olds, and 46.8% of 41- to 50-year-olds. Uneven skin tone was a major concern for 56.2% of 21- to 30-year-olds, 46.5% of 31- to 40-year-olds, and 31.2% of 41- to 50-year-olds. There was no statistically significant association between participants’ age and their concern with aging skin concerns.

Differences in Experience and Acceptance of Cosmetic Procedures—Regarding participants’ prior experience with cosmetic procedures, 22.3% had tried 1 or more procedures. Additionally, 67.0% reported having intentions of trying cosmetic procedures in the future, while 10.8% reported no intentions. Of those who were uninterested in trying cosmetic procedures, 78.9% (30/38) believed it unnecessary while 47.3% (18/38) reported a fear of looking unnatural. Other perceived deterrents to cosmetic procedures among this subset of participants were the need to repeat treatment for lasting results (28.9% [11/38]), too expensive (31.6% [12/38]), and fear of side effects (39.5% [15/38]). A significant difference was found between participants’ age and their experience with cosmetic procedures (P=.020). Participants aged 21 to 30 years reported they were more likely to want to try cosmetic procedures in the future. Participants aged 31 to 40 years were more likely to have already tried a cosmetic procedure. Participants aged 41 to 50 years were more likely to report no desire to try cosmetic procedures in the future. There was no significant difference in cosmetic procedure acceptance according to citizenship status, education level, or household income.

Differences in Cosmetic Procedure Experience—Study participants indicated awareness of typically practiced cosmetic procedures. Of the 78 participants who have tried cosmetic procedures (Figure 1), the most common were laser hair removal (46.2% [36/78]), chemical peels (37.2% [29/78]), and microdermabrasion (24.4% [19/78])(Table 2). Age significantly influenced the type of cosmetic procedures utilized by participants (P<.001). Laser hair removal was the most common cosmetic procedure utilized by participants aged 21 to 30 years (64.7%) and chemical peels in participants aged 31 to 40 years (47.8%); participants aged 41 to 50 years reported equal use of chemical peels (50.0%) and microdermabrasion (50.0%).

Two hundred thirty-six participants reported interest in trying cosmetic procedures, specifically laser hair removal (57.6%), chemical peels (51.7%), and neuromodulators (41.9%)(Table 2). Although not statistically significant, age appeared to influence interest levels in cosmetic procedures. Participants aged 21 to 30 years and 31 to 40 years were most interested in trying laser hair removal (60.7% and 58.3%, respectively). Participants aged 41 to 50 years were most interested in trying neuromodulators (36.4%). There was no significant association between age and intention to try neuromodulators, chemical peels, or laser hair removal.

Attitudes Toward Beauty—Approximately 40.6% of participants believed that peak beauty occurs when women reach their 20s, and 38.6% believed that peak beauty occurs when women reach their 30s. Participants’ strategies for maintaining beauty were assessed through their regular use of certain skin care products. The most frequently used skin care products were face wash or cleanser (92.6%), moisturizer (90.1%), lip balm (76.1%), and facial sunscreen (62.2%). Other commonly used items were serum (34.7%), toner (34.9%), topical vitamin C (33.2%), and retinol/retinoid products (33.0%). Only 2.3% of participants reported not using any skin care products regularly.

Perceptions of Aging—Concerning perceived external age, most respondents believed they looked younger than their true age (69.9%); 24.4% believed they looked their true age, and 5.7% believed they looked older. Perception of age also varied considerably by age group, though most believed they looked younger than their true age.

Comment

This survey helped to identify trends in cosmetic procedure acceptance and utilization in Black women. As expected, younger Black women were more receptive to cosmetic procedures, which was consistent with a recent finding that cosmetic procedures tend to be more widely accepted among younger generations overall.⁸ Participants aged 21 to 30 years had greater intentions to try a cosmetic procedure, while those aged 31 to 40 years were more likely to have tried 1 or more cosmetic procedures already, which may be because they are just beginning to see the signs of aging and are motivated to address these concerns. Additionally, women in this age group may be more likely to have a stable source of income and be able to afford these procedures. It is important to note that the population surveyed had a much higher reported household income than the average Black household income, with most respondents reporting an average annual income of $100,000 to $499,000. Our data also showed a trend toward greater acceptance and utilization of cosmetic procedures in those with higher levels of income, though the results were not statistically significant.

Respondents were most concerned about fine lines and wrinkles, followed by dark circles and uneven skin tone. One report in the literature (N=2000) indicated that the most common cosmetic concerns in women with SOC were hyperpigmentation/dark spots (86%) and blotchy or uneven skin (80%).⁹ Interestingly, sunscreen was one of the more commonly used products in our survey, which historically has not been the case among individuals with SOC¹⁰ and suggests that the attitudes and perceptions of SOC patients are changing to favor more frequent sunscreen use, at least among the younger generations. Because we did not specify moisturizer vs moisturizer with sun protection factor, the use of facial sunscreen may even be underestimated in our survey.

Compared to cosmetic surgery or dermal fillers, the procedures found to be most frequently utilized in our study population—microdermabrasion, chemical peels, and laser hair removal—are less invasive and fairly accessible with minimal downtime. An interesting topic for further research would be to investigate how the willingness of women to openly share their cosmetic procedure usage has changed over time. The rise of social media and influencer culture has undoubtedly had an impact on the sharing of such information. It also would have been interesting to ask participants where they receive the majority of their health/beauty information.

All skin types are susceptible to photoaging; however, melanin is known to have a natural photoprotective effect, resulting in a lesser degree and later onset of photoaging in patients with darker vs lighter skin.¹¹ It has been reported that individuals with SOC show signs of facial aging on average a decade later than those with lighter skin tones,¹² which may be why the majority of participants believed they look younger than they truly are. As expected, dyspigmentation was among the top skin concerns in our study population. Although melanin does offer some degree of protection against UVA and UVB, melanocyte lability with inflammation may make darker skin types more susceptible to pigmentary issues.¹³

Study Limitations—The income levels of our study population were not representative of typical Black American households, which is a limitation. Seventy-seven percent of our study population earned more than $100,000 annually, while only 18% of Black American households earned more than $100,000 in 2019.¹⁴ Another major limitation of our study was the lack of representation from older generations, as most participants were aged 21 to 40 years, which was expected, as it is the younger generation who typically is targeted by a snowball sampling method primarily shared through social media. Additionally, because participants were recruited from the social media profiles of medical professionals, followers of these accounts may be more interested in cosmetic procedures, skewing the study results. Finally, because geographic location was not captured in our initial data collection, we were unable to determine if results from a particular location within the United States were overrepresented in the data set.

Conclusion

Although the discourse around beauty and antiaging is constantly evolving, data about Black women frequently are underrepresented in the literature. The results of this study highlight the changing attitudes and perceptions of Black women regarding beauty, aging, and minimally invasive cosmetic procedures. Dermatologists should stay abreast of current trends in this population to be able to make appropriate, culturally sensitive recommendations to their Black patients—for example, pointing them to sunscreen brands that are best suited for darker skin.

Beauty has been a topic of interest for centuries. Treatments and technologies have advanced, and more women are utilizing cosmetic procedures than ever before, especially neuromodulators, minimally invasive procedures, and topical treatments.¹ Over the last decade, there was a 99% increase in minimally invasive cosmetic procedures in the United States.² There also has been an observable increase in the utilization of cosmetic procedures by Black patients in recent years; the American Society of Plastic Surgeons reported that the number of cosmetic plastic surgery procedures performed on “ethnic patients” (referring to Asian, Black, or Hispanic patients) increased 243% from 2000 to 2013,³ possibly attributed to increased accessibility, awareness of procedures due to social media, cultural acceptance, and affordability. Minimally invasive procedures are considerably less expensive than major surgical procedures and are becoming progressively more affordable, with numerous financing options available.² Additionally, neuromodulators and fillers are now commonly administered by nonaesthetic health professionals including dentists and nurses, which has increased accessibility of these procedures among patients who typically may not seek out a consultation with a plastic surgeon or dermatologist.⁴

When examining the most common cosmetic procedures collectively sought out by patients with skin of color (SOC), it has been found that an even skin tone is a highly desirable feature that impacts the selection of products and procedures in this particular patient population.⁵ Black, Hispanic, and Asian women report fewer signs of facial aging compared to White women in the glabellar lines, crow’s-feet, oral commissures, perioral lines, and lips.⁶ Increased melanocytes in darker skin types help prevent photoaging but also increase susceptibility to dyschromia. Prior studies have reported the most common concerns by patients with SOC are dyschromic disorders such as postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, postinflammatory hypopigmentation, and melasma.⁷ Common minimally invasive cosmetic procedures utilized by the SOC population include chemical peels, laser treatments, and injectables. Fillers are utilized more for volume loss in SOC patients rather than for the deep furrows and rhytides commonly seen in the lower face of White patients.⁸

We conducted a survey among Black women currently residing in the United States to better understand attitudes toward beauty and aging as well as the utilization of minimally invasive cosmetic procedures in this patient population.

Methods

An in-depth questionnaire comprised of 17 questions was created for this cross-sectional observational study. The study was submitted to and deemed exempt by the institutional review board at the University of Miami (Miami, Florida)(IRB #20211184). Survey participants primarily were recruited via social media posts on personal profiles of Black dermatologists, medical residents, and medicalstudents, including the authors, targeting Black women in the United States. Utilizing a method called snowball sampling, whereby study participants are used to recruit future participants, individuals were instructed to share the survey with their social network to assist with survey distribution. After participants provided informed consent, data were captured using the REDCap secure online data collection software. The questionnaire was structured to include a sociodemographic profile of respondents, attitudes toward beauty and aging, current usage of beauty products, prior utilization of cosmetic procedures, and intentions to use cosmetic procedures in the future. Surveys with incomplete consent forms, incomplete responses, and duplicate responses, as well as surveys from participants who were not residing in the United States at the time of survey completion, were excluded.

Data characteristics were summarized by frequency and percentage. A χ² test was performed to compare participants’ age demographics with their attitudes toward beauty and aging, utilization of cosmetic procedures, and intention to try cosmetic procedures in the future. The Fisher exact test was used instead of the χ² test when the expected cell count was less than 5. For all tests, P<.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software version 28.

Results

General Characteristics of Participants—A sample of 475 self-identified Black women aged 21 to 70 years participated in the study, and 352 eligible participants were included in the final analysis. Of the 352 eligible participants, 48.3% were aged 21 to 30 years, 47.2% were aged 31 to 40 years, and 4.5% were aged 41 to 50 years. All survey participants identified their race as Black; among them, 4% specified Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, and 9% indicated that they held multiracial identities including White/Caucasian, Asian, and Native American backgrounds. Regarding the participants’ citizenship status, 54.3% reported that both they and their parents were born in the United States; 2.3% were not US citizens or permanent residents, 13.1% identified as first-generation Americans (born outside of the United States), and 30.4% identified as second-generation Americans (one or both parents born outside of the United States). Participant education levels (based on highest level) varied greatly: 4.5% were high school graduates, 1.1% attended trade or technical schools, 3.4% had associate’s degrees, 39.8% had bachelor’s degrees, 35.2% had master’s degrees, and 15.9% had doctorate degrees. Regarding household income, 6.3% earned less than $25,000 per year, 16.8% earned from $25,000 to $99,999, 75.6% earned from $100,000 to $499,999, and 1.4% earned $500,000 or more. Patient demographics are provided in Table 1.

Cosmetic Skin Concerns—The top 3 aging skin concerns among participants were fine lines and wrinkles (51.9%), dark circles (33.8%), and uneven skin tone (31.8%) (Table 2). Approximately 5.4% of participants reported no desire to avoid the natural aging process. Among age groups, fine lines and wrinkles were a major concern for 51.7% of 21- to 30-year-olds, 47.6% of 31- to 40-year-olds, and 43.5% of 41- to 50-year-olds. Dark circles were a major concern for 61.3% of 21- to 30-year-olds, 44.4% of 31- to 40-year-olds, and 46.8% of 41- to 50-year-olds. Uneven skin tone was a major concern for 56.2% of 21- to 30-year-olds, 46.5% of 31- to 40-year-olds, and 31.2% of 41- to 50-year-olds. There was no statistically significant association between participants’ age and their concern with aging skin concerns.

Differences in Experience and Acceptance of Cosmetic Procedures—Regarding participants’ prior experience with cosmetic procedures, 22.3% had tried 1 or more procedures. Additionally, 67.0% reported having intentions of trying cosmetic procedures in the future, while 10.8% reported no intentions. Of those who were uninterested in trying cosmetic procedures, 78.9% (30/38) believed it unnecessary while 47.3% (18/38) reported a fear of looking unnatural. Other perceived deterrents to cosmetic procedures among this subset of participants were the need to repeat treatment for lasting results (28.9% [11/38]), too expensive (31.6% [12/38]), and fear of side effects (39.5% [15/38]). A significant difference was found between participants’ age and their experience with cosmetic procedures (P=.020). Participants aged 21 to 30 years reported they were more likely to want to try cosmetic procedures in the future. Participants aged 31 to 40 years were more likely to have already tried a cosmetic procedure. Participants aged 41 to 50 years were more likely to report no desire to try cosmetic procedures in the future. There was no significant difference in cosmetic procedure acceptance according to citizenship status, education level, or household income.

Differences in Cosmetic Procedure Experience—Study participants indicated awareness of typically practiced cosmetic procedures. Of the 78 participants who have tried cosmetic procedures (Figure 1), the most common were laser hair removal (46.2% [36/78]), chemical peels (37.2% [29/78]), and microdermabrasion (24.4% [19/78])(Table 2). Age significantly influenced the type of cosmetic procedures utilized by participants (P<.001). Laser hair removal was the most common cosmetic procedure utilized by participants aged 21 to 30 years (64.7%) and chemical peels in participants aged 31 to 40 years (47.8%); participants aged 41 to 50 years reported equal use of chemical peels (50.0%) and microdermabrasion (50.0%).

Two hundred thirty-six participants reported interest in trying cosmetic procedures, specifically laser hair removal (57.6%), chemical peels (51.7%), and neuromodulators (41.9%)(Table 2). Although not statistically significant, age appeared to influence interest levels in cosmetic procedures. Participants aged 21 to 30 years and 31 to 40 years were most interested in trying laser hair removal (60.7% and 58.3%, respectively). Participants aged 41 to 50 years were most interested in trying neuromodulators (36.4%). There was no significant association between age and intention to try neuromodulators, chemical peels, or laser hair removal.

Attitudes Toward Beauty—Approximately 40.6% of participants believed that peak beauty occurs when women reach their 20s, and 38.6% believed that peak beauty occurs when women reach their 30s. Participants’ strategies for maintaining beauty were assessed through their regular use of certain skin care products. The most frequently used skin care products were face wash or cleanser (92.6%), moisturizer (90.1%), lip balm (76.1%), and facial sunscreen (62.2%). Other commonly used items were serum (34.7%), toner (34.9%), topical vitamin C (33.2%), and retinol/retinoid products (33.0%). Only 2.3% of participants reported not using any skin care products regularly.

Perceptions of Aging—Concerning perceived external age, most respondents believed they looked younger than their true age (69.9%); 24.4% believed they looked their true age, and 5.7% believed they looked older. Perception of age also varied considerably by age group, though most believed they looked younger than their true age.

Comment

This survey helped to identify trends in cosmetic procedure acceptance and utilization in Black women. As expected, younger Black women were more receptive to cosmetic procedures, which was consistent with a recent finding that cosmetic procedures tend to be more widely accepted among younger generations overall.⁸ Participants aged 21 to 30 years had greater intentions to try a cosmetic procedure, while those aged 31 to 40 years were more likely to have tried 1 or more cosmetic procedures already, which may be because they are just beginning to see the signs of aging and are motivated to address these concerns. Additionally, women in this age group may be more likely to have a stable source of income and be able to afford these procedures. It is important to note that the population surveyed had a much higher reported household income than the average Black household income, with most respondents reporting an average annual income of $100,000 to $499,000. Our data also showed a trend toward greater acceptance and utilization of cosmetic procedures in those with higher levels of income, though the results were not statistically significant.

Respondents were most concerned about fine lines and wrinkles, followed by dark circles and uneven skin tone. One report in the literature (N=2000) indicated that the most common cosmetic concerns in women with SOC were hyperpigmentation/dark spots (86%) and blotchy or uneven skin (80%).⁹ Interestingly, sunscreen was one of the more commonly used products in our survey, which historically has not been the case among individuals with SOC¹⁰ and suggests that the attitudes and perceptions of SOC patients are changing to favor more frequent sunscreen use, at least among the younger generations. Because we did not specify moisturizer vs moisturizer with sun protection factor, the use of facial sunscreen may even be underestimated in our survey.

Compared to cosmetic surgery or dermal fillers, the procedures found to be most frequently utilized in our study population—microdermabrasion, chemical peels, and laser hair removal—are less invasive and fairly accessible with minimal downtime. An interesting topic for further research would be to investigate how the willingness of women to openly share their cosmetic procedure usage has changed over time. The rise of social media and influencer culture has undoubtedly had an impact on the sharing of such information. It also would have been interesting to ask participants where they receive the majority of their health/beauty information.

All skin types are susceptible to photoaging; however, melanin is known to have a natural photoprotective effect, resulting in a lesser degree and later onset of photoaging in patients with darker vs lighter skin.¹¹ It has been reported that individuals with SOC show signs of facial aging on average a decade later than those with lighter skin tones,¹² which may be why the majority of participants believed they look younger than they truly are. As expected, dyspigmentation was among the top skin concerns in our study population. Although melanin does offer some degree of protection against UVA and UVB, melanocyte lability with inflammation may make darker skin types more susceptible to pigmentary issues.¹³

Study Limitations—The income levels of our study population were not representative of typical Black American households, which is a limitation. Seventy-seven percent of our study population earned more than $100,000 annually, while only 18% of Black American households earned more than $100,000 in 2019.¹⁴ Another major limitation of our study was the lack of representation from older generations, as most participants were aged 21 to 40 years, which was expected, as it is the younger generation who typically is targeted by a snowball sampling method primarily shared through social media. Additionally, because participants were recruited from the social media profiles of medical professionals, followers of these accounts may be more interested in cosmetic procedures, skewing the study results. Finally, because geographic location was not captured in our initial data collection, we were unable to determine if results from a particular location within the United States were overrepresented in the data set.

Conclusion

Although the discourse around beauty and antiaging is constantly evolving, data about Black women frequently are underrepresented in the literature. The results of this study highlight the changing attitudes and perceptions of Black women regarding beauty, aging, and minimally invasive cosmetic procedures. Dermatologists should stay abreast of current trends in this population to be able to make appropriate, culturally sensitive recommendations to their Black patients—for example, pointing them to sunscreen brands that are best suited for darker skin.

Dermatology residencies continue to be among the most competitive, with only 66% of seniors in US medical schools (MD programs) successfully matching to a dermatology residency in 2023, according to the National Resident Matching Program. In 2023, there were 141 dermatology residency programs accepting applications, with a total of 499 positions offered. Of 578 medical school senior applicants, 384 of those applicants successfully matched. In contrast, of the 79 senior applicants from osteopathic medical schools, only 34 successfully matched, according to the National Resident Matching Program. A higher number of students match to either their home institution or an institution at which they completed an away (external) rotation, likely because faculty members are more comfortable matching future residents with whom they have worked because of greater familiarity with these applicants, and because applicants are more comfortable with programs familiar to them.¹

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Association of Professors of Dermatology published an official statement discouraging programs from offering in-person external electives to applicants in the 2020-2021 cycle. As the pandemic progressed, this evolved: for the 2021-2022 cycle, applicants were encouraged to complete only 1 away rotation, and for the 2022-2023 cycle, applicants were encouraged to complete up to 3 away rotations.² This most recent recommendation reflects applicant experience before the pandemic, with some students having a personal connection to up to 4 programs, including their home and away programs.

A cross-sectional study published in early 2023 analyzed internal matches prior to and until the second year of the pandemic. The prepandemic rate of internal matches—applicants who matched at their home programs—was 26.7%. This rate increased to 40.3% in the 2020-2021 cycle and was 33.5% in the 2021-2022 cycle.^2,3 The increase in internal matches is likely multifactorial, including the emergence of virtual interviews, the addition of program and geographic signals, and the regulation of away rotations. Notably, the rate of internal matches inversely correlates with the number of external programs to which students have connections.

We conducted a cross-sectional study to analyze the rates of internal and regional dermatology matches in the post–COVID-19 pandemic era (2022-2023) vs prepandemic and pandemic rates.

Methods

Data were obtained from publicly available online match lists from 65 US medical schools that detailed programs where dermatology applicants matched. The data reflected the postpandemic residency application cycle (2022-2023). These data were then compared to previous match rates for the prepandemic (2020-2021) and pandemic (2021-2022) application cycles. Medical schools without corresponding dermatology residency programs were excluded from the study. Regions were determined using the Association of American Medical Colleges Residency Explorer tool. The Northeast region included schools from Vermont; Pennsylvania; New Hampshire; New Jersey; Rhode Island; Maryland; Massachusetts; New York; Connecticut; and Washington, DC. The Southern region included schools from Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Arkansas, North Carolina, Alabama, South Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, and Virginia. The Western region included schools from Oregon, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Washington, and California. The Central region included schools from Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, and Nebraska. The data collected included the number of applicants who matched into dermatology, the number of applicants who matched at their home institutions, and the regions in which applicants matched. Rates of matching were calculated as percentages, and Pearson χ² tests were used to compare internal and regional match rates between different time periods.

Results

Results for the 2022-2023 residency cycle are summarized in the Table. Of 210 matches, 80 (38.10%) of the applicants matched at their home institution. In prepandemic cycles, 26.7% of applicants matched at their home institutions, which increased to 38.1% after the pandemic (P=.028). During the pandemic, 40.3% of applicants matched at their home institutions (P=.827).² One hundred forty-nine of 210 (70.95%) applicants matched in the same region as their home institutions. The Western region had the highest rate of both internal matches (47.06%) and same-region matches (76.47%). However, the Central and Northeast regions were a close second (43.55% for home matches and 75.81% for same-region matches) and third (42.31% for home matches and 75.00% for same-region matches) for both rates, respectively. The Southern region had the lowest rates overall, with 29.11% for home matches and 63.29% for same-region matches.

Comment

The changes to the match process resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic have had a profound impact on match outcomes since 2020. During the first year of the pandemic, internal matches increased to 40%; during the second year, the rate decreased to 33%.² The difference between the current postpandemic internal match rate of 38.1% and the prepandemic internal match rate of 26.7% was statistically significant (P=.028). Conversely, the difference between the postpandemic internal match rate and the pandemic internal match rate was not significant (P=.827). These findings suggest that that pandemic trends have continued despite the return to multiple away rotations for students, perhaps suggesting that virtual interviews, which have been maintained at most programs despite the end of the pandemic, may be the driving force behind the increased home match rate. During the second year of the pandemic, there were greater odds (odds ratio, 2.3) of a dermatology program matching at least 1 internal applicant vs the years prior to 2020.⁴

The prepandemic regional match rate was 61.6% and increased to 67.5% during the pandemic.³ Following the pandemic, 70.95% of applicants matched in the same region as their home program. A study completed in 2022 using the Texas Seeking Transparency in Application to Residency database found that there was no difference in the percentage of applicants who had a geographic connection to their program when comparing the 2021 cycle to 2018-2020 cycles.⁵ Frequently, applicants prefer to stay within their regions due to social factors. Although applicants can again travel for external rotations, the regional match rate has stayed relatively constant before and after the pandemic, though it has trended upward throughout the latest application cycles.

During the 2022-2023 cycle, applicants were able to send preference signals to 3 programs. A survey reflecting the 2021-2022 cycle showed that 21.1% of applicants who sent a preference signal to a program were interviewed by that program, whereas only 3.7% of applicants who did not send a preference signal were interviewed. Furthermore, 19% of matched applicants sent a preference signal to the program at which they ultimately matched.⁶ Survey respondents included 40 accredited dermatology residency programs who reported an average of 506 applications per program. Preference signals were developed to allow applicants to connect with programs at which they were not able to rotate. It is unclear how preference signals are affecting internal or regional match rates, but similar to virtual interviewing, they may be contributing to the higher rates of internal matching.

This study is limited in the number of programs with match data publicly available for analysis. Additionally, there were no official data on how many students match at programs at which they completed external rotations. Furthermore, these data do not include reapplicants or osteopathic applicants who match within their regions. Importantly, all US medical schools were not represented in these data. Many programs, specifically in the Western region, did not have publicly available match lists. Self-reported match lists were not included in this study to avoid discrepancies. Regional rates reported here may not be representative of actual regional rates, as there were more applicants and internal matches in each region than were included in this study.

Conclusion

Although applicants were able to participate in external rotations as of the last 2 application cycles, there was still an increase in the rate of internal dermatology matches during the 2022-2023 cycle. This trend suggests an underlying disadvantage in matching for students without a home program. For the 2023-2024 cycle, applicants are recommended to complete up to 2 external rotations and may consider up to 3 if they do not have a home program. This recommended limitation in external rotations aims to allow students without a home program to develop connections with more programs.

Dermatology residencies continue to be among the most competitive, with only 66% of seniors in US medical schools (MD programs) successfully matching to a dermatology residency in 2023, according to the National Resident Matching Program. In 2023, there were 141 dermatology residency programs accepting applications, with a total of 499 positions offered. Of 578 medical school senior applicants, 384 of those applicants successfully matched. In contrast, of the 79 senior applicants from osteopathic medical schools, only 34 successfully matched, according to the National Resident Matching Program. A higher number of students match to either their home institution or an institution at which they completed an away (external) rotation, likely because faculty members are more comfortable matching future residents with whom they have worked because of greater familiarity with these applicants, and because applicants are more comfortable with programs familiar to them.¹

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Association of Professors of Dermatology published an official statement discouraging programs from offering in-person external electives to applicants in the 2020-2021 cycle. As the pandemic progressed, this evolved: for the 2021-2022 cycle, applicants were encouraged to complete only 1 away rotation, and for the 2022-2023 cycle, applicants were encouraged to complete up to 3 away rotations.² This most recent recommendation reflects applicant experience before the pandemic, with some students having a personal connection to up to 4 programs, including their home and away programs.

A cross-sectional study published in early 2023 analyzed internal matches prior to and until the second year of the pandemic. The prepandemic rate of internal matches—applicants who matched at their home programs—was 26.7%. This rate increased to 40.3% in the 2020-2021 cycle and was 33.5% in the 2021-2022 cycle.^2,3 The increase in internal matches is likely multifactorial, including the emergence of virtual interviews, the addition of program and geographic signals, and the regulation of away rotations. Notably, the rate of internal matches inversely correlates with the number of external programs to which students have connections.

We conducted a cross-sectional study to analyze the rates of internal and regional dermatology matches in the post–COVID-19 pandemic era (2022-2023) vs prepandemic and pandemic rates.

Methods

Data were obtained from publicly available online match lists from 65 US medical schools that detailed programs where dermatology applicants matched. The data reflected the postpandemic residency application cycle (2022-2023). These data were then compared to previous match rates for the prepandemic (2020-2021) and pandemic (2021-2022) application cycles. Medical schools without corresponding dermatology residency programs were excluded from the study. Regions were determined using the Association of American Medical Colleges Residency Explorer tool. The Northeast region included schools from Vermont; Pennsylvania; New Hampshire; New Jersey; Rhode Island; Maryland; Massachusetts; New York; Connecticut; and Washington, DC. The Southern region included schools from Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Arkansas, North Carolina, Alabama, South Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, and Virginia. The Western region included schools from Oregon, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Washington, and California. The Central region included schools from Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, and Nebraska. The data collected included the number of applicants who matched into dermatology, the number of applicants who matched at their home institutions, and the regions in which applicants matched. Rates of matching were calculated as percentages, and Pearson χ² tests were used to compare internal and regional match rates between different time periods.

Results

Results for the 2022-2023 residency cycle are summarized in the Table. Of 210 matches, 80 (38.10%) of the applicants matched at their home institution. In prepandemic cycles, 26.7% of applicants matched at their home institutions, which increased to 38.1% after the pandemic (P=.028). During the pandemic, 40.3% of applicants matched at their home institutions (P=.827).² One hundred forty-nine of 210 (70.95%) applicants matched in the same region as their home institutions. The Western region had the highest rate of both internal matches (47.06%) and same-region matches (76.47%). However, the Central and Northeast regions were a close second (43.55% for home matches and 75.81% for same-region matches) and third (42.31% for home matches and 75.00% for same-region matches) for both rates, respectively. The Southern region had the lowest rates overall, with 29.11% for home matches and 63.29% for same-region matches.

Comment

The changes to the match process resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic have had a profound impact on match outcomes since 2020. During the first year of the pandemic, internal matches increased to 40%; during the second year, the rate decreased to 33%.² The difference between the current postpandemic internal match rate of 38.1% and the prepandemic internal match rate of 26.7% was statistically significant (P=.028). Conversely, the difference between the postpandemic internal match rate and the pandemic internal match rate was not significant (P=.827). These findings suggest that that pandemic trends have continued despite the return to multiple away rotations for students, perhaps suggesting that virtual interviews, which have been maintained at most programs despite the end of the pandemic, may be the driving force behind the increased home match rate. During the second year of the pandemic, there were greater odds (odds ratio, 2.3) of a dermatology program matching at least 1 internal applicant vs the years prior to 2020.⁴

The prepandemic regional match rate was 61.6% and increased to 67.5% during the pandemic.³ Following the pandemic, 70.95% of applicants matched in the same region as their home program. A study completed in 2022 using the Texas Seeking Transparency in Application to Residency database found that there was no difference in the percentage of applicants who had a geographic connection to their program when comparing the 2021 cycle to 2018-2020 cycles.⁵ Frequently, applicants prefer to stay within their regions due to social factors. Although applicants can again travel for external rotations, the regional match rate has stayed relatively constant before and after the pandemic, though it has trended upward throughout the latest application cycles.

During the 2022-2023 cycle, applicants were able to send preference signals to 3 programs. A survey reflecting the 2021-2022 cycle showed that 21.1% of applicants who sent a preference signal to a program were interviewed by that program, whereas only 3.7% of applicants who did not send a preference signal were interviewed. Furthermore, 19% of matched applicants sent a preference signal to the program at which they ultimately matched.⁶ Survey respondents included 40 accredited dermatology residency programs who reported an average of 506 applications per program. Preference signals were developed to allow applicants to connect with programs at which they were not able to rotate. It is unclear how preference signals are affecting internal or regional match rates, but similar to virtual interviewing, they may be contributing to the higher rates of internal matching.

This study is limited in the number of programs with match data publicly available for analysis. Additionally, there were no official data on how many students match at programs at which they completed external rotations. Furthermore, these data do not include reapplicants or osteopathic applicants who match within their regions. Importantly, all US medical schools were not represented in these data. Many programs, specifically in the Western region, did not have publicly available match lists. Self-reported match lists were not included in this study to avoid discrepancies. Regional rates reported here may not be representative of actual regional rates, as there were more applicants and internal matches in each region than were included in this study.

Conclusion

Although applicants were able to participate in external rotations as of the last 2 application cycles, there was still an increase in the rate of internal dermatology matches during the 2022-2023 cycle. This trend suggests an underlying disadvantage in matching for students without a home program. For the 2023-2024 cycle, applicants are recommended to complete up to 2 external rotations and may consider up to 3 if they do not have a home program. This recommended limitation in external rotations aims to allow students without a home program to develop connections with more programs.

Dermatology residencies continue to be among the most competitive, with only 66% of seniors in US medical schools (MD programs) successfully matching to a dermatology residency in 2023, according to the National Resident Matching Program. In 2023, there were 141 dermatology residency programs accepting applications, with a total of 499 positions offered. Of 578 medical school senior applicants, 384 of those applicants successfully matched. In contrast, of the 79 senior applicants from osteopathic medical schools, only 34 successfully matched, according to the National Resident Matching Program. A higher number of students match to either their home institution or an institution at which they completed an away (external) rotation, likely because faculty members are more comfortable matching future residents with whom they have worked because of greater familiarity with these applicants, and because applicants are more comfortable with programs familiar to them.¹

Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Association of Professors of Dermatology published an official statement discouraging programs from offering in-person external electives to applicants in the 2020-2021 cycle. As the pandemic progressed, this evolved: for the 2021-2022 cycle, applicants were encouraged to complete only 1 away rotation, and for the 2022-2023 cycle, applicants were encouraged to complete up to 3 away rotations.² This most recent recommendation reflects applicant experience before the pandemic, with some students having a personal connection to up to 4 programs, including their home and away programs.

A cross-sectional study published in early 2023 analyzed internal matches prior to and until the second year of the pandemic. The prepandemic rate of internal matches—applicants who matched at their home programs—was 26.7%. This rate increased to 40.3% in the 2020-2021 cycle and was 33.5% in the 2021-2022 cycle.^2,3 The increase in internal matches is likely multifactorial, including the emergence of virtual interviews, the addition of program and geographic signals, and the regulation of away rotations. Notably, the rate of internal matches inversely correlates with the number of external programs to which students have connections.

We conducted a cross-sectional study to analyze the rates of internal and regional dermatology matches in the post–COVID-19 pandemic era (2022-2023) vs prepandemic and pandemic rates.

Methods

Data were obtained from publicly available online match lists from 65 US medical schools that detailed programs where dermatology applicants matched. The data reflected the postpandemic residency application cycle (2022-2023). These data were then compared to previous match rates for the prepandemic (2020-2021) and pandemic (2021-2022) application cycles. Medical schools without corresponding dermatology residency programs were excluded from the study. Regions were determined using the Association of American Medical Colleges Residency Explorer tool. The Northeast region included schools from Vermont; Pennsylvania; New Hampshire; New Jersey; Rhode Island; Maryland; Massachusetts; New York; Connecticut; and Washington, DC. The Southern region included schools from Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Arkansas, North Carolina, Alabama, South Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, and Virginia. The Western region included schools from Oregon, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Washington, and California. The Central region included schools from Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, and Nebraska. The data collected included the number of applicants who matched into dermatology, the number of applicants who matched at their home institutions, and the regions in which applicants matched. Rates of matching were calculated as percentages, and Pearson χ² tests were used to compare internal and regional match rates between different time periods.

Results

Results for the 2022-2023 residency cycle are summarized in the Table. Of 210 matches, 80 (38.10%) of the applicants matched at their home institution. In prepandemic cycles, 26.7% of applicants matched at their home institutions, which increased to 38.1% after the pandemic (P=.028). During the pandemic, 40.3% of applicants matched at their home institutions (P=.827).² One hundred forty-nine of 210 (70.95%) applicants matched in the same region as their home institutions. The Western region had the highest rate of both internal matches (47.06%) and same-region matches (76.47%). However, the Central and Northeast regions were a close second (43.55% for home matches and 75.81% for same-region matches) and third (42.31% for home matches and 75.00% for same-region matches) for both rates, respectively. The Southern region had the lowest rates overall, with 29.11% for home matches and 63.29% for same-region matches.

Comment

The changes to the match process resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic have had a profound impact on match outcomes since 2020. During the first year of the pandemic, internal matches increased to 40%; during the second year, the rate decreased to 33%.² The difference between the current postpandemic internal match rate of 38.1% and the prepandemic internal match rate of 26.7% was statistically significant (P=.028). Conversely, the difference between the postpandemic internal match rate and the pandemic internal match rate was not significant (P=.827). These findings suggest that that pandemic trends have continued despite the return to multiple away rotations for students, perhaps suggesting that virtual interviews, which have been maintained at most programs despite the end of the pandemic, may be the driving force behind the increased home match rate. During the second year of the pandemic, there were greater odds (odds ratio, 2.3) of a dermatology program matching at least 1 internal applicant vs the years prior to 2020.⁴

The prepandemic regional match rate was 61.6% and increased to 67.5% during the pandemic.³ Following the pandemic, 70.95% of applicants matched in the same region as their home program. A study completed in 2022 using the Texas Seeking Transparency in Application to Residency database found that there was no difference in the percentage of applicants who had a geographic connection to their program when comparing the 2021 cycle to 2018-2020 cycles.⁵ Frequently, applicants prefer to stay within their regions due to social factors. Although applicants can again travel for external rotations, the regional match rate has stayed relatively constant before and after the pandemic, though it has trended upward throughout the latest application cycles.

During the 2022-2023 cycle, applicants were able to send preference signals to 3 programs. A survey reflecting the 2021-2022 cycle showed that 21.1% of applicants who sent a preference signal to a program were interviewed by that program, whereas only 3.7% of applicants who did not send a preference signal were interviewed. Furthermore, 19% of matched applicants sent a preference signal to the program at which they ultimately matched.⁶ Survey respondents included 40 accredited dermatology residency programs who reported an average of 506 applications per program. Preference signals were developed to allow applicants to connect with programs at which they were not able to rotate. It is unclear how preference signals are affecting internal or regional match rates, but similar to virtual interviewing, they may be contributing to the higher rates of internal matching.

This study is limited in the number of programs with match data publicly available for analysis. Additionally, there were no official data on how many students match at programs at which they completed external rotations. Furthermore, these data do not include reapplicants or osteopathic applicants who match within their regions. Importantly, all US medical schools were not represented in these data. Many programs, specifically in the Western region, did not have publicly available match lists. Self-reported match lists were not included in this study to avoid discrepancies. Regional rates reported here may not be representative of actual regional rates, as there were more applicants and internal matches in each region than were included in this study.

Conclusion

Although applicants were able to participate in external rotations as of the last 2 application cycles, there was still an increase in the rate of internal dermatology matches during the 2022-2023 cycle. This trend suggests an underlying disadvantage in matching for students without a home program. For the 2023-2024 cycle, applicants are recommended to complete up to 2 external rotations and may consider up to 3 if they do not have a home program. This recommended limitation in external rotations aims to allow students without a home program to develop connections with more programs.

Dermatologists improve the diagnostic accuracy and quality of care of patients in the hospital setting. They help shorten the length of stay, improve outpatient follow-up, and reduce the rate of hospital readmission.¹ Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized with skin conditions at institutions with a dermatology hospitalist—a provider with a specialty interest in inpatient dermatology—have 24% lower odds of risk-adjusted 30-day mortality and 12% lower odds of risk-adjusted 30-day readmissions.²

In the last year, research among the dermatology hospitalist community has actively contributed to our understanding of challenging inpatient skin diseases and has identified new ways in which dermatologists can contribute to the care of hospitalized patients. In this review, we highlight 4 areas of focus from the published literature in 2022-2023—severe cutaneous adverse reactions, supportive oncodermatology, cost of inpatient services, and teledermatology.

Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions: Old and New

Severe cutaneous adverse reactions to medications frequently are encountered in the inpatient setting. Dermatology hospitalists are well positioned to phenotype these reactions, drawing insights that aid in identifying, characterizing, risk stratifying, and managing these conditions, which have considerable morbidity and mortality.

A recent 20-year retrospective review of cases of acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (N=340) across 10 academic systems—the largest to date—improves our understanding of the features of this rare entity.³ The authors found that acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis most often is triggered by β-lactam and other antibiotics (75.5%) and is accompanied by fever (49.7%), neutrophilia (85.1%), and eosinophilia (52.1%). Kidney and liver involvement occur in less than 10% of cases, and mortality rates are low but not zero, with an all-cause 30-day mortality rate of 3.5%.³

In a multi-institutional retrospective study of 68 patients diagnosed with DRESS (drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms) syndrome, Sharma et al⁴ developed a scoring system to identify those at greatest risk for DRESS recurrence. Variables associated with recurrence including younger age, female sex, and features considered atypical for DRESS syndrome—nonmorbilliform rash; absence of facial edema; antinuclear antibody positivity; medication class other than antibiotic, antigout, or antiseizure—were used to develop a “ReDRESS” score. This predictive model had a sensitivity of 73% and specificity of 83% for predicting DRESS recurrence.⁴

Another case series characterized SCoRCH (sudden conjunctivitis, lymphopenia, sunburnlike rash, and hemodynamic changes), a newly described hypersensitivity reaction to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.⁵ The onset of this reaction typically occurs 4 to 11 days after initiation of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole but can occur as quickly as 1 day following re-exposure. Patients are systemically ill with fever, hypotension, tachycardia, acute renal insufficiency, and transaminitis, and they have a diffuse sunburnlike erythema without scale, facial edema, and conjunctivitis. It is thought this distinct hypersensitivity reaction may be mediated by IL-6, which has a role in triggering a sepsislike physiology, with vasodilation, hypotension, and edema.⁵

A systematic review and meta-analysis found that sulfonamides remain the most prominent cause of Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN).⁶ A case-control study described SJS/TEN presentations triggered by Mycoplasma, advocating for routine Mycoplasma screening, especially in patients without a clear medication culprit. Mycoplasma-induced cases carried statistically lower rates of mortality (0%) compared with medication-induced cases (22.5%).⁷ Another prospective open-label study evaluated SJS/TEN management by randomizing 25 patients to receive either combination therapy with methylprednisolone plus a tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor or methylprednisolone alone.⁸ Anti–tumor necrosis factor therapy was associated with a shorter length of initial steroid treatment and duration of the acute stage, hospitalization, and time to re-epithelialization⁸; however, as in a prior randomized unblinded trial,⁹ there was no difference in mortality between the 2 groups.

There is limited high-quality evidence to support the use of any systemic immunomodulator to decrease SJS/TEN–related mortality.¹⁰ A Cochrane systematic review highlighted the many limitations of the available data due to variations in presentation, assessment, and management.¹¹ Because SJS/TEN is rare, powering studies based on mortality is infeasible; the authors calculated that 2872 participants were needed to detect a 50% mortality reduction among those with SCORTEN (severity-of-illness score for TEN) scores of 0 to 1.¹¹ Therefore, collaborative efforts using appropriate outcomes measures (eg, time to re-epithelialization, length of hospital stay), standardized terminology and dosing regimens, and adaptive trial designs are needed. Consensus-derived assessment and treatment protocols could help account for variation, ensure consistency in treatment, and enable head-to-head comparisons. Members of the Society of Dermatology Hospitalists are working on efforts to standardize terminology and validate outcomes measures needed for future studies.¹²

Supportive Oncodermatology: A New Frontier

With the advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for a growing number of cancers, dermatologists have become critical to identifying and managing cutaneous immune-related adverse events (cirAEs). Recent findings have demonstrated that dermatology input improves patient outcomes, not only regarding the treatment of dermatoses but also by augmenting cancer-related survival. One group found that patients with cirAEs who were evaluated by a dermatologist had improved progression-free (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54-0.87; P=.002) and overall survival rates (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.45-0.84; P=.002), controlling for cirAE severity, age, sex, cancer type, and ICI subtype. Patients who were under the care of a dermatologist also were more likely to resume ICI therapy following an interruption (odds ratio, 10.52; 95% CI, 5.15-21.48; P<.001).¹³ Dermatologists help to optimize skin-directed and targeted therapies, such as dupilumab, minimizing exposure to systemic immunosuppression in these complex patients.¹⁴

Supportive oncodermatologists also have made important observations on how cirAEs relate to other adverse events and prognosis. A review of 628 patients found that almost half of those with cirAEs had co-occurring noncutaneous immune-related adverse events, most commonly pulmonary. Psoriasiform eruptions were most frequently associated with noncutaneous immune-related adverse events, and cutaneous reactions frequently preceded the development of systemic manifestations, serving as a clinical biomarker to provide prognostic information.¹⁵ A review of 95 patients found that spongiotic and lichenoid interface reactions were associated with decreased mortality rates, whereas vacuolar interface and perivascular dermatitis were associated with increased mortality.¹⁶

As with severe cutaneous adverse events, dermatology input has been critical for accurately phenotyping and risk stratifying these novel reactions. The dermatologist’s skill set is necessary for optimizing skin-directed and targeted therapies while minimizing systemic immunosuppression, thereby improving patient outcomes with respect to rash, cancer response, and survival.

The Cost of Inpatient Skin Disease

Hospitalizations account for approximately half of all health care expenditures, and hospital readmission, seen as a measure of the quality of health care delivery, can double this cost.¹⁷ Identifying and developing protocols for addressing patients with complex chronic inflammatory disorders is one strategy for improving outcomes and reducing financial burden. Inpatient dermatologists have identified hidradenitis suppurativa as one disease that can benefit from early intervention by dermatologists in the hospital, with its 30-day (17.8%) and 180-day (48.6%) readmission rates being comparable to those of heart failure.¹⁸

Following an index emergency department (ED) visit, 17.2% (3484/20,269) of patients with HS have at least 1 return ED visit within 30 days, while only 2.4% (483/20,269) have a dermatology visit within the same time frame.¹⁹ Understanding the risk factors for hospital readmission and ED utilization, including severity of illness, the presence of medical comorbidities, health coverage under Medicaid, and receipt of opioids, can allow dermatologists to anticipate those at greatest risk.¹⁹ Opportunities exist for cross-specialty interventions to anticipate and address modifiable risk factors. Shorter time to dermatology outpatient follow-up leads to improved clinic attendance and may help reduce ED utilization and hospital readmission.²⁰

Teledermatology: Leveraging Inpatient Expertise

Although the benefit of inpatient dermatologic care is substantial, access to that care is finite. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, there is an increased acceptance of telemedicine and the long-term role it can play in leveraging dermatologic expertise, including meeting the increasing demand for inpatient dermatology care in rural and resource-poor communities.²¹

Recent studies conducted by dermatology hospitalists have illustrated the value of asynchronous store-and-forward technology in settings lacking access to consultative dermatology.^22,23 Stephens et al²² found that expanding provider-to-provider electronic consultation (e-consultation) capacity to an inpatient rehabilitation facility resulted in completed consultations within 1.5 days compared with a 7- to 14-day wait time for patients attending an in-person urgent access dermatology clinic. In another study, the implementation of asynchronous dermatology e-consultations for immunobullous diseases, vasculitis, and herpes zoster resulted in a change in diagnosis 86% of the time, accompanied by at least 1 new systemic or topical therapy recommendation.²³

Researchers also identified ways in which teledermatology can be inelegant and proposed specific supplemental data to aid in diagnosis. A review of 126 inpatient e-consultations demonstrated limitations related to the diagnosis of skin and soft-tissue infections. In two-thirds to three-quarters of cases, potentially useful descriptive information was missing, and in 70% (88/126), images were not appropriately focused. The authors developed a detailed checklist to help primary medical teams focus their differential diagnoses.²⁴ A recent pilot study found that supplementation of clinical information with a standardized questionnaire and thermal images improved the accuracy of cellulitis diagnosis. Using this method, there was no difference in accuracy between dermatology hospitalists and other board-certified dermatologists, supporting the notion that any dermatologist can fulfill this need successfully, even without specific inpatient experience.²⁵ Due to the high incidence and cost of cellulitis and related hospital admissions,²⁶ such an intervention could have a considerable financial and patient safety impact.

Final Thoughts

This last year brought many changes to the health care landscape, the recession of a global pandemic, and an increasingly complex health care delivery system. Inpatient dermatologists met these challenges by providing high-quality dermatologic care and practice-modifying research in the areas of severe cutaneous adverse reactions, supportive oncodermatology, hospital readmission, telemedicine, and more, demonstrating the value of dermatologic expertise in the hospital setting.

Dermatologists improve the diagnostic accuracy and quality of care of patients in the hospital setting. They help shorten the length of stay, improve outpatient follow-up, and reduce the rate of hospital readmission.¹ Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized with skin conditions at institutions with a dermatology hospitalist—a provider with a specialty interest in inpatient dermatology—have 24% lower odds of risk-adjusted 30-day mortality and 12% lower odds of risk-adjusted 30-day readmissions.²

In the last year, research among the dermatology hospitalist community has actively contributed to our understanding of challenging inpatient skin diseases and has identified new ways in which dermatologists can contribute to the care of hospitalized patients. In this review, we highlight 4 areas of focus from the published literature in 2022-2023—severe cutaneous adverse reactions, supportive oncodermatology, cost of inpatient services, and teledermatology.

Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions: Old and New

Severe cutaneous adverse reactions to medications frequently are encountered in the inpatient setting. Dermatology hospitalists are well positioned to phenotype these reactions, drawing insights that aid in identifying, characterizing, risk stratifying, and managing these conditions, which have considerable morbidity and mortality.

A recent 20-year retrospective review of cases of acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (N=340) across 10 academic systems—the largest to date—improves our understanding of the features of this rare entity.³ The authors found that acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis most often is triggered by β-lactam and other antibiotics (75.5%) and is accompanied by fever (49.7%), neutrophilia (85.1%), and eosinophilia (52.1%). Kidney and liver involvement occur in less than 10% of cases, and mortality rates are low but not zero, with an all-cause 30-day mortality rate of 3.5%.³

In a multi-institutional retrospective study of 68 patients diagnosed with DRESS (drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms) syndrome, Sharma et al⁴ developed a scoring system to identify those at greatest risk for DRESS recurrence. Variables associated with recurrence including younger age, female sex, and features considered atypical for DRESS syndrome—nonmorbilliform rash; absence of facial edema; antinuclear antibody positivity; medication class other than antibiotic, antigout, or antiseizure—were used to develop a “ReDRESS” score. This predictive model had a sensitivity of 73% and specificity of 83% for predicting DRESS recurrence.⁴

Another case series characterized SCoRCH (sudden conjunctivitis, lymphopenia, sunburnlike rash, and hemodynamic changes), a newly described hypersensitivity reaction to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.⁵ The onset of this reaction typically occurs 4 to 11 days after initiation of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole but can occur as quickly as 1 day following re-exposure. Patients are systemically ill with fever, hypotension, tachycardia, acute renal insufficiency, and transaminitis, and they have a diffuse sunburnlike erythema without scale, facial edema, and conjunctivitis. It is thought this distinct hypersensitivity reaction may be mediated by IL-6, which has a role in triggering a sepsislike physiology, with vasodilation, hypotension, and edema.⁵

A systematic review and meta-analysis found that sulfonamides remain the most prominent cause of Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN).⁶ A case-control study described SJS/TEN presentations triggered by Mycoplasma, advocating for routine Mycoplasma screening, especially in patients without a clear medication culprit. Mycoplasma-induced cases carried statistically lower rates of mortality (0%) compared with medication-induced cases (22.5%).⁷ Another prospective open-label study evaluated SJS/TEN management by randomizing 25 patients to receive either combination therapy with methylprednisolone plus a tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor or methylprednisolone alone.⁸ Anti–tumor necrosis factor therapy was associated with a shorter length of initial steroid treatment and duration of the acute stage, hospitalization, and time to re-epithelialization⁸; however, as in a prior randomized unblinded trial,⁹ there was no difference in mortality between the 2 groups.

There is limited high-quality evidence to support the use of any systemic immunomodulator to decrease SJS/TEN–related mortality.¹⁰ A Cochrane systematic review highlighted the many limitations of the available data due to variations in presentation, assessment, and management.¹¹ Because SJS/TEN is rare, powering studies based on mortality is infeasible; the authors calculated that 2872 participants were needed to detect a 50% mortality reduction among those with SCORTEN (severity-of-illness score for TEN) scores of 0 to 1.¹¹ Therefore, collaborative efforts using appropriate outcomes measures (eg, time to re-epithelialization, length of hospital stay), standardized terminology and dosing regimens, and adaptive trial designs are needed. Consensus-derived assessment and treatment protocols could help account for variation, ensure consistency in treatment, and enable head-to-head comparisons. Members of the Society of Dermatology Hospitalists are working on efforts to standardize terminology and validate outcomes measures needed for future studies.¹²

Supportive Oncodermatology: A New Frontier

With the advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for a growing number of cancers, dermatologists have become critical to identifying and managing cutaneous immune-related adverse events (cirAEs). Recent findings have demonstrated that dermatology input improves patient outcomes, not only regarding the treatment of dermatoses but also by augmenting cancer-related survival. One group found that patients with cirAEs who were evaluated by a dermatologist had improved progression-free (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54-0.87; P=.002) and overall survival rates (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.45-0.84; P=.002), controlling for cirAE severity, age, sex, cancer type, and ICI subtype. Patients who were under the care of a dermatologist also were more likely to resume ICI therapy following an interruption (odds ratio, 10.52; 95% CI, 5.15-21.48; P<.001).¹³ Dermatologists help to optimize skin-directed and targeted therapies, such as dupilumab, minimizing exposure to systemic immunosuppression in these complex patients.¹⁴

Supportive oncodermatologists also have made important observations on how cirAEs relate to other adverse events and prognosis. A review of 628 patients found that almost half of those with cirAEs had co-occurring noncutaneous immune-related adverse events, most commonly pulmonary. Psoriasiform eruptions were most frequently associated with noncutaneous immune-related adverse events, and cutaneous reactions frequently preceded the development of systemic manifestations, serving as a clinical biomarker to provide prognostic information.¹⁵ A review of 95 patients found that spongiotic and lichenoid interface reactions were associated with decreased mortality rates, whereas vacuolar interface and perivascular dermatitis were associated with increased mortality.¹⁶

As with severe cutaneous adverse events, dermatology input has been critical for accurately phenotyping and risk stratifying these novel reactions. The dermatologist’s skill set is necessary for optimizing skin-directed and targeted therapies while minimizing systemic immunosuppression, thereby improving patient outcomes with respect to rash, cancer response, and survival.

The Cost of Inpatient Skin Disease

Hospitalizations account for approximately half of all health care expenditures, and hospital readmission, seen as a measure of the quality of health care delivery, can double this cost.¹⁷ Identifying and developing protocols for addressing patients with complex chronic inflammatory disorders is one strategy for improving outcomes and reducing financial burden. Inpatient dermatologists have identified hidradenitis suppurativa as one disease that can benefit from early intervention by dermatologists in the hospital, with its 30-day (17.8%) and 180-day (48.6%) readmission rates being comparable to those of heart failure.¹⁸

Following an index emergency department (ED) visit, 17.2% (3484/20,269) of patients with HS have at least 1 return ED visit within 30 days, while only 2.4% (483/20,269) have a dermatology visit within the same time frame.¹⁹ Understanding the risk factors for hospital readmission and ED utilization, including severity of illness, the presence of medical comorbidities, health coverage under Medicaid, and receipt of opioids, can allow dermatologists to anticipate those at greatest risk.¹⁹ Opportunities exist for cross-specialty interventions to anticipate and address modifiable risk factors. Shorter time to dermatology outpatient follow-up leads to improved clinic attendance and may help reduce ED utilization and hospital readmission.²⁰

Teledermatology: Leveraging Inpatient Expertise

Although the benefit of inpatient dermatologic care is substantial, access to that care is finite. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, there is an increased acceptance of telemedicine and the long-term role it can play in leveraging dermatologic expertise, including meeting the increasing demand for inpatient dermatology care in rural and resource-poor communities.²¹

Recent studies conducted by dermatology hospitalists have illustrated the value of asynchronous store-and-forward technology in settings lacking access to consultative dermatology.^22,23 Stephens et al²² found that expanding provider-to-provider electronic consultation (e-consultation) capacity to an inpatient rehabilitation facility resulted in completed consultations within 1.5 days compared with a 7- to 14-day wait time for patients attending an in-person urgent access dermatology clinic. In another study, the implementation of asynchronous dermatology e-consultations for immunobullous diseases, vasculitis, and herpes zoster resulted in a change in diagnosis 86% of the time, accompanied by at least 1 new systemic or topical therapy recommendation.²³

Researchers also identified ways in which teledermatology can be inelegant and proposed specific supplemental data to aid in diagnosis. A review of 126 inpatient e-consultations demonstrated limitations related to the diagnosis of skin and soft-tissue infections. In two-thirds to three-quarters of cases, potentially useful descriptive information was missing, and in 70% (88/126), images were not appropriately focused. The authors developed a detailed checklist to help primary medical teams focus their differential diagnoses.²⁴ A recent pilot study found that supplementation of clinical information with a standardized questionnaire and thermal images improved the accuracy of cellulitis diagnosis. Using this method, there was no difference in accuracy between dermatology hospitalists and other board-certified dermatologists, supporting the notion that any dermatologist can fulfill this need successfully, even without specific inpatient experience.²⁵ Due to the high incidence and cost of cellulitis and related hospital admissions,²⁶ such an intervention could have a considerable financial and patient safety impact.

Final Thoughts

This last year brought many changes to the health care landscape, the recession of a global pandemic, and an increasingly complex health care delivery system. Inpatient dermatologists met these challenges by providing high-quality dermatologic care and practice-modifying research in the areas of severe cutaneous adverse reactions, supportive oncodermatology, hospital readmission, telemedicine, and more, demonstrating the value of dermatologic expertise in the hospital setting.

Dermatologists improve the diagnostic accuracy and quality of care of patients in the hospital setting. They help shorten the length of stay, improve outpatient follow-up, and reduce the rate of hospital readmission.¹ Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized with skin conditions at institutions with a dermatology hospitalist—a provider with a specialty interest in inpatient dermatology—have 24% lower odds of risk-adjusted 30-day mortality and 12% lower odds of risk-adjusted 30-day readmissions.²

In the last year, research among the dermatology hospitalist community has actively contributed to our understanding of challenging inpatient skin diseases and has identified new ways in which dermatologists can contribute to the care of hospitalized patients. In this review, we highlight 4 areas of focus from the published literature in 2022-2023—severe cutaneous adverse reactions, supportive oncodermatology, cost of inpatient services, and teledermatology.

Severe Cutaneous Adverse Reactions: Old and New

Severe cutaneous adverse reactions to medications frequently are encountered in the inpatient setting. Dermatology hospitalists are well positioned to phenotype these reactions, drawing insights that aid in identifying, characterizing, risk stratifying, and managing these conditions, which have considerable morbidity and mortality.

A recent 20-year retrospective review of cases of acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (N=340) across 10 academic systems—the largest to date—improves our understanding of the features of this rare entity.³ The authors found that acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis most often is triggered by β-lactam and other antibiotics (75.5%) and is accompanied by fever (49.7%), neutrophilia (85.1%), and eosinophilia (52.1%). Kidney and liver involvement occur in less than 10% of cases, and mortality rates are low but not zero, with an all-cause 30-day mortality rate of 3.5%.³

In a multi-institutional retrospective study of 68 patients diagnosed with DRESS (drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms) syndrome, Sharma et al⁴ developed a scoring system to identify those at greatest risk for DRESS recurrence. Variables associated with recurrence including younger age, female sex, and features considered atypical for DRESS syndrome—nonmorbilliform rash; absence of facial edema; antinuclear antibody positivity; medication class other than antibiotic, antigout, or antiseizure—were used to develop a “ReDRESS” score. This predictive model had a sensitivity of 73% and specificity of 83% for predicting DRESS recurrence.⁴

Another case series characterized SCoRCH (sudden conjunctivitis, lymphopenia, sunburnlike rash, and hemodynamic changes), a newly described hypersensitivity reaction to trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole.⁵ The onset of this reaction typically occurs 4 to 11 days after initiation of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole but can occur as quickly as 1 day following re-exposure. Patients are systemically ill with fever, hypotension, tachycardia, acute renal insufficiency, and transaminitis, and they have a diffuse sunburnlike erythema without scale, facial edema, and conjunctivitis. It is thought this distinct hypersensitivity reaction may be mediated by IL-6, which has a role in triggering a sepsislike physiology, with vasodilation, hypotension, and edema.⁵

A systematic review and meta-analysis found that sulfonamides remain the most prominent cause of Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN).⁶ A case-control study described SJS/TEN presentations triggered by Mycoplasma, advocating for routine Mycoplasma screening, especially in patients without a clear medication culprit. Mycoplasma-induced cases carried statistically lower rates of mortality (0%) compared with medication-induced cases (22.5%).⁷ Another prospective open-label study evaluated SJS/TEN management by randomizing 25 patients to receive either combination therapy with methylprednisolone plus a tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor or methylprednisolone alone.⁸ Anti–tumor necrosis factor therapy was associated with a shorter length of initial steroid treatment and duration of the acute stage, hospitalization, and time to re-epithelialization⁸; however, as in a prior randomized unblinded trial,⁹ there was no difference in mortality between the 2 groups.

There is limited high-quality evidence to support the use of any systemic immunomodulator to decrease SJS/TEN–related mortality.¹⁰ A Cochrane systematic review highlighted the many limitations of the available data due to variations in presentation, assessment, and management.¹¹ Because SJS/TEN is rare, powering studies based on mortality is infeasible; the authors calculated that 2872 participants were needed to detect a 50% mortality reduction among those with SCORTEN (severity-of-illness score for TEN) scores of 0 to 1.¹¹ Therefore, collaborative efforts using appropriate outcomes measures (eg, time to re-epithelialization, length of hospital stay), standardized terminology and dosing regimens, and adaptive trial designs are needed. Consensus-derived assessment and treatment protocols could help account for variation, ensure consistency in treatment, and enable head-to-head comparisons. Members of the Society of Dermatology Hospitalists are working on efforts to standardize terminology and validate outcomes measures needed for future studies.¹²

Supportive Oncodermatology: A New Frontier

With the advent of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for a growing number of cancers, dermatologists have become critical to identifying and managing cutaneous immune-related adverse events (cirAEs). Recent findings have demonstrated that dermatology input improves patient outcomes, not only regarding the treatment of dermatoses but also by augmenting cancer-related survival. One group found that patients with cirAEs who were evaluated by a dermatologist had improved progression-free (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.54-0.87; P=.002) and overall survival rates (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.45-0.84; P=.002), controlling for cirAE severity, age, sex, cancer type, and ICI subtype. Patients who were under the care of a dermatologist also were more likely to resume ICI therapy following an interruption (odds ratio, 10.52; 95% CI, 5.15-21.48; P<.001).¹³ Dermatologists help to optimize skin-directed and targeted therapies, such as dupilumab, minimizing exposure to systemic immunosuppression in these complex patients.¹⁴

Supportive oncodermatologists also have made important observations on how cirAEs relate to other adverse events and prognosis. A review of 628 patients found that almost half of those with cirAEs had co-occurring noncutaneous immune-related adverse events, most commonly pulmonary. Psoriasiform eruptions were most frequently associated with noncutaneous immune-related adverse events, and cutaneous reactions frequently preceded the development of systemic manifestations, serving as a clinical biomarker to provide prognostic information.¹⁵ A review of 95 patients found that spongiotic and lichenoid interface reactions were associated with decreased mortality rates, whereas vacuolar interface and perivascular dermatitis were associated with increased mortality.¹⁶

As with severe cutaneous adverse events, dermatology input has been critical for accurately phenotyping and risk stratifying these novel reactions. The dermatologist’s skill set is necessary for optimizing skin-directed and targeted therapies while minimizing systemic immunosuppression, thereby improving patient outcomes with respect to rash, cancer response, and survival.

The Cost of Inpatient Skin Disease

Hospitalizations account for approximately half of all health care expenditures, and hospital readmission, seen as a measure of the quality of health care delivery, can double this cost.¹⁷ Identifying and developing protocols for addressing patients with complex chronic inflammatory disorders is one strategy for improving outcomes and reducing financial burden. Inpatient dermatologists have identified hidradenitis suppurativa as one disease that can benefit from early intervention by dermatologists in the hospital, with its 30-day (17.8%) and 180-day (48.6%) readmission rates being comparable to those of heart failure.¹⁸

Following an index emergency department (ED) visit, 17.2% (3484/20,269) of patients with HS have at least 1 return ED visit within 30 days, while only 2.4% (483/20,269) have a dermatology visit within the same time frame.¹⁹ Understanding the risk factors for hospital readmission and ED utilization, including severity of illness, the presence of medical comorbidities, health coverage under Medicaid, and receipt of opioids, can allow dermatologists to anticipate those at greatest risk.¹⁹ Opportunities exist for cross-specialty interventions to anticipate and address modifiable risk factors. Shorter time to dermatology outpatient follow-up leads to improved clinic attendance and may help reduce ED utilization and hospital readmission.²⁰

Teledermatology: Leveraging Inpatient Expertise

Although the benefit of inpatient dermatologic care is substantial, access to that care is finite. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, there is an increased acceptance of telemedicine and the long-term role it can play in leveraging dermatologic expertise, including meeting the increasing demand for inpatient dermatology care in rural and resource-poor communities.²¹

Recent studies conducted by dermatology hospitalists have illustrated the value of asynchronous store-and-forward technology in settings lacking access to consultative dermatology.^22,23 Stephens et al²² found that expanding provider-to-provider electronic consultation (e-consultation) capacity to an inpatient rehabilitation facility resulted in completed consultations within 1.5 days compared with a 7- to 14-day wait time for patients attending an in-person urgent access dermatology clinic. In another study, the implementation of asynchronous dermatology e-consultations for immunobullous diseases, vasculitis, and herpes zoster resulted in a change in diagnosis 86% of the time, accompanied by at least 1 new systemic or topical therapy recommendation.²³

Researchers also identified ways in which teledermatology can be inelegant and proposed specific supplemental data to aid in diagnosis. A review of 126 inpatient e-consultations demonstrated limitations related to the diagnosis of skin and soft-tissue infections. In two-thirds to three-quarters of cases, potentially useful descriptive information was missing, and in 70% (88/126), images were not appropriately focused. The authors developed a detailed checklist to help primary medical teams focus their differential diagnoses.²⁴ A recent pilot study found that supplementation of clinical information with a standardized questionnaire and thermal images improved the accuracy of cellulitis diagnosis. Using this method, there was no difference in accuracy between dermatology hospitalists and other board-certified dermatologists, supporting the notion that any dermatologist can fulfill this need successfully, even without specific inpatient experience.²⁵ Due to the high incidence and cost of cellulitis and related hospital admissions,²⁶ such an intervention could have a considerable financial and patient safety impact.

Final Thoughts

This last year brought many changes to the health care landscape, the recession of a global pandemic, and an increasingly complex health care delivery system. Inpatient dermatologists met these challenges by providing high-quality dermatologic care and practice-modifying research in the areas of severe cutaneous adverse reactions, supportive oncodermatology, hospital readmission, telemedicine, and more, demonstrating the value of dermatologic expertise in the hospital setting.