MDedge Dermatology

A California woman developed skin cancer after getting a cut during a manicure. Now, she and her doctor are spreading the word about her ordeal as a lesson that speed and persistence in seeking treatment are the keys that make her type of cancer – squamous cell carcinoma – completely curable.

“She cut me, and the cut wasn’t just a regular cuticle cut. She cut me deep, and that was one of the first times that happened to me,” Grace Garcia, 50, told TODAY.com, recalling the November 2021 incident.

Ms. Garcia had been getting her nails done regularly for 20 years, she said, but happened to go to a different salon than her usual spot because she couldn’t get an appointment during the busy pre-Thanksgiving season. She doesn’t recall whether the technician opened packaging that signals unused tools.

She put antibiotic ointment on the cut, but it didn’t heal after a few days. Eventually, the skin closed and a darkened bump formed. It was painful. She went to her doctor, who said it was a “callus from writing,” she told TODAY.com. But it was on her ring finger, which didn’t seem connected to writing. Her doctor said to keep an eye on it. 

Five months after the cut occurred, she mentioned it during a gynecology appointment and was referred to a dermatologist, who also advised keeping an eye on it. A wart developed. She went back to her primary care physician and then to another dermatologist. The spot was biopsied.

Squamous cell carcinoma is a common type of skin cancer, according to the American Academy of Dermatology. It can have many causes, but the cause in Ms. Garcia’s case was both very common and very rare: human papillomavirus, or HPV. HPV is a virus that infects millions of people every year, but it’s not a typical cause of skin cancer.

“It’s pretty rare for several reasons. Generally speaking, the strains that cause cancer from an HPV standpoint tend to be more sexually transmitted,” dermatologist Teo Soleymani told TODAY.com. “In Grace’s case, she had an injury, which became the portal of entry. So that thick skin that we have on our hands and feet that acts as a natural barrier against infections and things like that was no longer the case, and the virus was able to infect her skin.”

Dr. Soleymani said Ms. Garcia’s persistence to get answers likely saved her from losing a finger.

“Your outcomes are entirely dictated by how early you catch them, and very often they’re completely curable,” he said. “Her persistence – not only was she able to have a great outcome, she probably saved herself from having her finger amputated.”

A California woman developed skin cancer after getting a cut during a manicure. Now, she and her doctor are spreading the word about her ordeal as a lesson that speed and persistence in seeking treatment are the keys that make her type of cancer – squamous cell carcinoma – completely curable.

“She cut me, and the cut wasn’t just a regular cuticle cut. She cut me deep, and that was one of the first times that happened to me,” Grace Garcia, 50, told TODAY.com, recalling the November 2021 incident.

Ms. Garcia had been getting her nails done regularly for 20 years, she said, but happened to go to a different salon than her usual spot because she couldn’t get an appointment during the busy pre-Thanksgiving season. She doesn’t recall whether the technician opened packaging that signals unused tools.

She put antibiotic ointment on the cut, but it didn’t heal after a few days. Eventually, the skin closed and a darkened bump formed. It was painful. She went to her doctor, who said it was a “callus from writing,” she told TODAY.com. But it was on her ring finger, which didn’t seem connected to writing. Her doctor said to keep an eye on it. 

Five months after the cut occurred, she mentioned it during a gynecology appointment and was referred to a dermatologist, who also advised keeping an eye on it. A wart developed. She went back to her primary care physician and then to another dermatologist. The spot was biopsied.

Squamous cell carcinoma is a common type of skin cancer, according to the American Academy of Dermatology. It can have many causes, but the cause in Ms. Garcia’s case was both very common and very rare: human papillomavirus, or HPV. HPV is a virus that infects millions of people every year, but it’s not a typical cause of skin cancer.

“It’s pretty rare for several reasons. Generally speaking, the strains that cause cancer from an HPV standpoint tend to be more sexually transmitted,” dermatologist Teo Soleymani told TODAY.com. “In Grace’s case, she had an injury, which became the portal of entry. So that thick skin that we have on our hands and feet that acts as a natural barrier against infections and things like that was no longer the case, and the virus was able to infect her skin.”

Dr. Soleymani said Ms. Garcia’s persistence to get answers likely saved her from losing a finger.

“Your outcomes are entirely dictated by how early you catch them, and very often they’re completely curable,” he said. “Her persistence – not only was she able to have a great outcome, she probably saved herself from having her finger amputated.”

A California woman developed skin cancer after getting a cut during a manicure. Now, she and her doctor are spreading the word about her ordeal as a lesson that speed and persistence in seeking treatment are the keys that make her type of cancer – squamous cell carcinoma – completely curable.

“She cut me, and the cut wasn’t just a regular cuticle cut. She cut me deep, and that was one of the first times that happened to me,” Grace Garcia, 50, told TODAY.com, recalling the November 2021 incident.

Ms. Garcia had been getting her nails done regularly for 20 years, she said, but happened to go to a different salon than her usual spot because she couldn’t get an appointment during the busy pre-Thanksgiving season. She doesn’t recall whether the technician opened packaging that signals unused tools.

She put antibiotic ointment on the cut, but it didn’t heal after a few days. Eventually, the skin closed and a darkened bump formed. It was painful. She went to her doctor, who said it was a “callus from writing,” she told TODAY.com. But it was on her ring finger, which didn’t seem connected to writing. Her doctor said to keep an eye on it. 

Five months after the cut occurred, she mentioned it during a gynecology appointment and was referred to a dermatologist, who also advised keeping an eye on it. A wart developed. She went back to her primary care physician and then to another dermatologist. The spot was biopsied.

Squamous cell carcinoma is a common type of skin cancer, according to the American Academy of Dermatology. It can have many causes, but the cause in Ms. Garcia’s case was both very common and very rare: human papillomavirus, or HPV. HPV is a virus that infects millions of people every year, but it’s not a typical cause of skin cancer.

“It’s pretty rare for several reasons. Generally speaking, the strains that cause cancer from an HPV standpoint tend to be more sexually transmitted,” dermatologist Teo Soleymani told TODAY.com. “In Grace’s case, she had an injury, which became the portal of entry. So that thick skin that we have on our hands and feet that acts as a natural barrier against infections and things like that was no longer the case, and the virus was able to infect her skin.”

Dr. Soleymani said Ms. Garcia’s persistence to get answers likely saved her from losing a finger.

“Your outcomes are entirely dictated by how early you catch them, and very often they’re completely curable,” he said. “Her persistence – not only was she able to have a great outcome, she probably saved herself from having her finger amputated.”

Physicians and other clinicians could more easily exit contracts and change jobs under the Federal Trade Commission’s new proposed rule that would block companies from limiting employees’ ability to work for a rival.

The proposed rule seeks to ban companies from enforcing noncompete clauses in employment contracts, a practice that represents an “unfair method of competition” with “exploitative and widespread” impacts, including suppression of wages, innovation, and entrepreneurial spirit, the FTC said. The public has 60 days to submit comments on the proposal before the FTC issues the final rule.

Employers often include noncompete clauses in physician contracts because they want to avoid having patients leave their health care system and follow a doctor to a competitor. A 2018 survey of primary care physicians found that about half of office-based physicians and 37% of physicians employed at hospitals or freestanding care centers were bound by restrictive covenants.

“A federal ban on noncompete agreements will ensure that physicians nationwide can finally change jobs without fear of being sued,” Erik B. Smith, MD, JD, clinical assistant professor of anesthesiology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

Many doctors would like to see noncompete agreements vanish, but some physicians still favor them.

“As a small-practice owner, I am personally against this. The noncompete helps me take a risk and hire a physician. It typically takes 2-3 years for me to break even. I think this will further consolidate employment with large hospital systems unfortunately,” Texas cardiologist Rishin Shah, MD, recently tweeted in response to the FTC announcement.

Dr. Smith, who has advocated for noncompete reform, said about half of states currently allow the controversial clauses.

However, several states have recently passed laws restricting their use. California, North Dakota, and Oklahoma ban noncompetes, although some narrowly defined exceptions, such as the sale of a business, remain.

Other states, like Colorado, Illinois, and Oregon, broadly ban noncompete clauses, except for workers earning above a certain threshold. For example, in Colorado, noncompete agreements are permitted for highly compensated employees earning more than $101,250.

Despite additional restrictions on noncompete agreements for workers in the District of Columbia, the new legislation does not apply to physicians earning total compensation of $250,000 or more. However, their employers must define the geographic parameters of the noncompete and limit postemployment restrictions to 2 years.

Restrictive covenants are “uniquely challenging to family medicine’s emphasis on longitudinal care and the patient-physician relationship,” said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. The limitations imposed by noncompete agreements “potentially reduce patient choice, lower the quality of care for patients, and ultimately harm the foundation of family medicine – our relationships with our patients.”

Although the proposed rule aligns with President Biden’s executive order promoting economic competition, Dr. Smith said a national ban on noncompete agreements may push the limits of FTC authority.

“This new rule will certainly result in a ‘major questions doctrine’ Supreme Court challenge,” said Dr. Smith, and possibly be struck down if the court determines an administrative overstep into areas of “vast economic or political significance.”
 

A controversial policy

The American Medical Association’s code of ethics discourages covenants that “unreasonably restrict” the ability of physicians to practice following contract termination. And in 2022, the AMA cited “overly broad” noncompete language as a red flag young physicians should watch out for during contract negotiations.

But in 2020, the AMA asked the FTC not to use its rulemaking authority to regulate noncompete clauses in physician employment contracts, and instead, relegate enforcement of such agreements to each state. The American Hospital Association expressed similar views.

Still, the FTC said that eliminating noncompete clauses will increase annual wages by $300 billion, allow 30 million Americans to pursue better job opportunities, and encourage hiring competition among employers. It will also save consumers up to $148 billion in health care costs annually.

“Noncompetes block workers from freely switching jobs, depriving them of higher wages and better working conditions, and depriving businesses of a talent pool that they need to build and expand,” Lina M. Khan, FTC chair, said in a press release about the proposal.

A national ban on noncompetes would keep more physicians in the industry and practicing in their communities, a win for patients and providers, said Dr. Smith. It could also compel employers to offer more competitive employment packages, including fair wages, better work conditions, and a culture of well-being and patient safety.

“Whatever the final rule is, I’m certain it will be legally challenged,” said Dr. Smith, adding that the nation’s most prominent business lobbying group, the Chamber of Commerce, has already issued a statement calling the rule “blatantly unlawful."

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians and other clinicians could more easily exit contracts and change jobs under the Federal Trade Commission’s new proposed rule that would block companies from limiting employees’ ability to work for a rival.

The proposed rule seeks to ban companies from enforcing noncompete clauses in employment contracts, a practice that represents an “unfair method of competition” with “exploitative and widespread” impacts, including suppression of wages, innovation, and entrepreneurial spirit, the FTC said. The public has 60 days to submit comments on the proposal before the FTC issues the final rule.

Employers often include noncompete clauses in physician contracts because they want to avoid having patients leave their health care system and follow a doctor to a competitor. A 2018 survey of primary care physicians found that about half of office-based physicians and 37% of physicians employed at hospitals or freestanding care centers were bound by restrictive covenants.

“A federal ban on noncompete agreements will ensure that physicians nationwide can finally change jobs without fear of being sued,” Erik B. Smith, MD, JD, clinical assistant professor of anesthesiology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

Many doctors would like to see noncompete agreements vanish, but some physicians still favor them.

“As a small-practice owner, I am personally against this. The noncompete helps me take a risk and hire a physician. It typically takes 2-3 years for me to break even. I think this will further consolidate employment with large hospital systems unfortunately,” Texas cardiologist Rishin Shah, MD, recently tweeted in response to the FTC announcement.

Dr. Smith, who has advocated for noncompete reform, said about half of states currently allow the controversial clauses.

However, several states have recently passed laws restricting their use. California, North Dakota, and Oklahoma ban noncompetes, although some narrowly defined exceptions, such as the sale of a business, remain.

Other states, like Colorado, Illinois, and Oregon, broadly ban noncompete clauses, except for workers earning above a certain threshold. For example, in Colorado, noncompete agreements are permitted for highly compensated employees earning more than $101,250.

Despite additional restrictions on noncompete agreements for workers in the District of Columbia, the new legislation does not apply to physicians earning total compensation of $250,000 or more. However, their employers must define the geographic parameters of the noncompete and limit postemployment restrictions to 2 years.

Restrictive covenants are “uniquely challenging to family medicine’s emphasis on longitudinal care and the patient-physician relationship,” said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. The limitations imposed by noncompete agreements “potentially reduce patient choice, lower the quality of care for patients, and ultimately harm the foundation of family medicine – our relationships with our patients.”

Although the proposed rule aligns with President Biden’s executive order promoting economic competition, Dr. Smith said a national ban on noncompete agreements may push the limits of FTC authority.

“This new rule will certainly result in a ‘major questions doctrine’ Supreme Court challenge,” said Dr. Smith, and possibly be struck down if the court determines an administrative overstep into areas of “vast economic or political significance.”
 

A controversial policy

The American Medical Association’s code of ethics discourages covenants that “unreasonably restrict” the ability of physicians to practice following contract termination. And in 2022, the AMA cited “overly broad” noncompete language as a red flag young physicians should watch out for during contract negotiations.

But in 2020, the AMA asked the FTC not to use its rulemaking authority to regulate noncompete clauses in physician employment contracts, and instead, relegate enforcement of such agreements to each state. The American Hospital Association expressed similar views.

Still, the FTC said that eliminating noncompete clauses will increase annual wages by $300 billion, allow 30 million Americans to pursue better job opportunities, and encourage hiring competition among employers. It will also save consumers up to $148 billion in health care costs annually.

“Noncompetes block workers from freely switching jobs, depriving them of higher wages and better working conditions, and depriving businesses of a talent pool that they need to build and expand,” Lina M. Khan, FTC chair, said in a press release about the proposal.

A national ban on noncompetes would keep more physicians in the industry and practicing in their communities, a win for patients and providers, said Dr. Smith. It could also compel employers to offer more competitive employment packages, including fair wages, better work conditions, and a culture of well-being and patient safety.

“Whatever the final rule is, I’m certain it will be legally challenged,” said Dr. Smith, adding that the nation’s most prominent business lobbying group, the Chamber of Commerce, has already issued a statement calling the rule “blatantly unlawful."

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians and other clinicians could more easily exit contracts and change jobs under the Federal Trade Commission’s new proposed rule that would block companies from limiting employees’ ability to work for a rival.

The proposed rule seeks to ban companies from enforcing noncompete clauses in employment contracts, a practice that represents an “unfair method of competition” with “exploitative and widespread” impacts, including suppression of wages, innovation, and entrepreneurial spirit, the FTC said. The public has 60 days to submit comments on the proposal before the FTC issues the final rule.

Employers often include noncompete clauses in physician contracts because they want to avoid having patients leave their health care system and follow a doctor to a competitor. A 2018 survey of primary care physicians found that about half of office-based physicians and 37% of physicians employed at hospitals or freestanding care centers were bound by restrictive covenants.

“A federal ban on noncompete agreements will ensure that physicians nationwide can finally change jobs without fear of being sued,” Erik B. Smith, MD, JD, clinical assistant professor of anesthesiology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, said in an interview.

Many doctors would like to see noncompete agreements vanish, but some physicians still favor them.

“As a small-practice owner, I am personally against this. The noncompete helps me take a risk and hire a physician. It typically takes 2-3 years for me to break even. I think this will further consolidate employment with large hospital systems unfortunately,” Texas cardiologist Rishin Shah, MD, recently tweeted in response to the FTC announcement.

Dr. Smith, who has advocated for noncompete reform, said about half of states currently allow the controversial clauses.

However, several states have recently passed laws restricting their use. California, North Dakota, and Oklahoma ban noncompetes, although some narrowly defined exceptions, such as the sale of a business, remain.

Other states, like Colorado, Illinois, and Oregon, broadly ban noncompete clauses, except for workers earning above a certain threshold. For example, in Colorado, noncompete agreements are permitted for highly compensated employees earning more than $101,250.

Despite additional restrictions on noncompete agreements for workers in the District of Columbia, the new legislation does not apply to physicians earning total compensation of $250,000 or more. However, their employers must define the geographic parameters of the noncompete and limit postemployment restrictions to 2 years.

Restrictive covenants are “uniquely challenging to family medicine’s emphasis on longitudinal care and the patient-physician relationship,” said Tochi Iroku-Malize, MD, MPH, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. The limitations imposed by noncompete agreements “potentially reduce patient choice, lower the quality of care for patients, and ultimately harm the foundation of family medicine – our relationships with our patients.”

Although the proposed rule aligns with President Biden’s executive order promoting economic competition, Dr. Smith said a national ban on noncompete agreements may push the limits of FTC authority.

“This new rule will certainly result in a ‘major questions doctrine’ Supreme Court challenge,” said Dr. Smith, and possibly be struck down if the court determines an administrative overstep into areas of “vast economic or political significance.”
 

A controversial policy

The American Medical Association’s code of ethics discourages covenants that “unreasonably restrict” the ability of physicians to practice following contract termination. And in 2022, the AMA cited “overly broad” noncompete language as a red flag young physicians should watch out for during contract negotiations.

But in 2020, the AMA asked the FTC not to use its rulemaking authority to regulate noncompete clauses in physician employment contracts, and instead, relegate enforcement of such agreements to each state. The American Hospital Association expressed similar views.

Still, the FTC said that eliminating noncompete clauses will increase annual wages by $300 billion, allow 30 million Americans to pursue better job opportunities, and encourage hiring competition among employers. It will also save consumers up to $148 billion in health care costs annually.

“Noncompetes block workers from freely switching jobs, depriving them of higher wages and better working conditions, and depriving businesses of a talent pool that they need to build and expand,” Lina M. Khan, FTC chair, said in a press release about the proposal.

A national ban on noncompetes would keep more physicians in the industry and practicing in their communities, a win for patients and providers, said Dr. Smith. It could also compel employers to offer more competitive employment packages, including fair wages, better work conditions, and a culture of well-being and patient safety.

“Whatever the final rule is, I’m certain it will be legally challenged,” said Dr. Smith, adding that the nation’s most prominent business lobbying group, the Chamber of Commerce, has already issued a statement calling the rule “blatantly unlawful."

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Every year, during the relatively slow winter-months period, I like to take a tour of my office from the paradigm of a patient visiting our facility for the first time. When was the last time you did a comprehensive inspection, looking for problems that your patients might see?

We tend not to notice gradual deterioration in the workplace we inhabit every day: Carpets fade and dull with constant traffic and cleaning; wallpaper and paint accumulate dirt, stains, and damage; furniture gets dirty and dented, fabric rips, hardware goes missing; laminate peels off the edges of desks and cabinets.

When did you last take a good look at your waiting room? How clean is it? Patients expect cleanliness in doctor’s offices, and they expect the reception area to be neat. How are the carpeting and upholstery holding up? Sit in your chairs; how do they feel? Patients don’t appreciate a sore back or bottom from any chairs, especially in a medical office. Consider investing in new furniture that will be attractive and comfortable for your patients.

Look at the decor itself; is it dated or just plain “old-looking?” Any interior designer will tell you they can determine quite accurately when a space was last decorated, simply by the color and style of the materials used. If your office is stuck in the ‘90s, it’s probably time for a change. Even if you don’t find anything obvious, it’s wise to check periodically for subtle evidence of age: Find some patches of protected carpeting and flooring under stationary furniture and compare them to exposed floors.

If your color scheme is hopelessly out of date and style, or if you are just tired of it, change it. Wallpaper and carpeting should be long-wearing industrial quality; paint should be high-quality “eggshell” finish to facilitate cleaning, and everything should be professionally applied. (This is neither the time nor place for do-it-yourself experiments.) Consider updating your overhead lighting. The harsh glow of fluorescent lights amid an uninspired decor creates a sterile, uninviting atmosphere.

During renovation, get your building’s maintenance crew to fix any nagging plumbing, electrical, or heating/air conditioning problems while pipes, ducts, and wires are more readily accessible. This is also a good time to clear out old textbooks, journals, and files that you will never open again, in this digital age.

If your wall decorations are dated and unattractive, now would be a good time to replace at least some of them. This need not be an expensive proposition; a few years ago, I redecorated my exam room walls with framed photos from my travel adventures – to very positive responses from patients and staff alike. If you’re not an artist or photographer, invite a family member, or local artists or talented patients, to display some of their creations on your walls. If you get too many contributions, you can rotate them on a periodic basis.

Plants are great aesthetic accents, yet many offices have little or no plant life. Plants naturally aerate an office suite and help make it feel less stuffy. Also, multiple studies have found that plants promote productivity among office staff and create a sense of calm for apprehensive patients. Improvements like this can make a big difference. They show an attention to detail and a willingness to make your practice as inviting as possible for patients and employees alike.

Spruce-up time is also an excellent opportunity to inventory your medical equipment. We’ve all seen “vintage” offices full of gadgets that were state-of-the-art decades ago. Nostalgia is nice; but would you want to be treated by a physician whose office could be a Smithsonian exhibit titled, “Doctor’s Office Circa 1975?” Neither would your patients, for the most part; many – particularly younger ones – assume that doctors who don’t keep up with technological innovations don’t keep up with anything else, either.

If you’re planning a vacation this year (and I hope you are), that would be the perfect time for a re-do. Your patients will be spared the dust and turmoil, tradespeople won’t have to work around your office hours, and you won’t have to cancel any hours that weren’t already canceled. Best of all, you’ll come back to a clean, fresh environment.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Every year, during the relatively slow winter-months period, I like to take a tour of my office from the paradigm of a patient visiting our facility for the first time. When was the last time you did a comprehensive inspection, looking for problems that your patients might see?

We tend not to notice gradual deterioration in the workplace we inhabit every day: Carpets fade and dull with constant traffic and cleaning; wallpaper and paint accumulate dirt, stains, and damage; furniture gets dirty and dented, fabric rips, hardware goes missing; laminate peels off the edges of desks and cabinets.

When did you last take a good look at your waiting room? How clean is it? Patients expect cleanliness in doctor’s offices, and they expect the reception area to be neat. How are the carpeting and upholstery holding up? Sit in your chairs; how do they feel? Patients don’t appreciate a sore back or bottom from any chairs, especially in a medical office. Consider investing in new furniture that will be attractive and comfortable for your patients.

Look at the decor itself; is it dated or just plain “old-looking?” Any interior designer will tell you they can determine quite accurately when a space was last decorated, simply by the color and style of the materials used. If your office is stuck in the ‘90s, it’s probably time for a change. Even if you don’t find anything obvious, it’s wise to check periodically for subtle evidence of age: Find some patches of protected carpeting and flooring under stationary furniture and compare them to exposed floors.

If your color scheme is hopelessly out of date and style, or if you are just tired of it, change it. Wallpaper and carpeting should be long-wearing industrial quality; paint should be high-quality “eggshell” finish to facilitate cleaning, and everything should be professionally applied. (This is neither the time nor place for do-it-yourself experiments.) Consider updating your overhead lighting. The harsh glow of fluorescent lights amid an uninspired decor creates a sterile, uninviting atmosphere.

During renovation, get your building’s maintenance crew to fix any nagging plumbing, electrical, or heating/air conditioning problems while pipes, ducts, and wires are more readily accessible. This is also a good time to clear out old textbooks, journals, and files that you will never open again, in this digital age.

If your wall decorations are dated and unattractive, now would be a good time to replace at least some of them. This need not be an expensive proposition; a few years ago, I redecorated my exam room walls with framed photos from my travel adventures – to very positive responses from patients and staff alike. If you’re not an artist or photographer, invite a family member, or local artists or talented patients, to display some of their creations on your walls. If you get too many contributions, you can rotate them on a periodic basis.

Plants are great aesthetic accents, yet many offices have little or no plant life. Plants naturally aerate an office suite and help make it feel less stuffy. Also, multiple studies have found that plants promote productivity among office staff and create a sense of calm for apprehensive patients. Improvements like this can make a big difference. They show an attention to detail and a willingness to make your practice as inviting as possible for patients and employees alike.

Spruce-up time is also an excellent opportunity to inventory your medical equipment. We’ve all seen “vintage” offices full of gadgets that were state-of-the-art decades ago. Nostalgia is nice; but would you want to be treated by a physician whose office could be a Smithsonian exhibit titled, “Doctor’s Office Circa 1975?” Neither would your patients, for the most part; many – particularly younger ones – assume that doctors who don’t keep up with technological innovations don’t keep up with anything else, either.

If you’re planning a vacation this year (and I hope you are), that would be the perfect time for a re-do. Your patients will be spared the dust and turmoil, tradespeople won’t have to work around your office hours, and you won’t have to cancel any hours that weren’t already canceled. Best of all, you’ll come back to a clean, fresh environment.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

Every year, during the relatively slow winter-months period, I like to take a tour of my office from the paradigm of a patient visiting our facility for the first time. When was the last time you did a comprehensive inspection, looking for problems that your patients might see?

We tend not to notice gradual deterioration in the workplace we inhabit every day: Carpets fade and dull with constant traffic and cleaning; wallpaper and paint accumulate dirt, stains, and damage; furniture gets dirty and dented, fabric rips, hardware goes missing; laminate peels off the edges of desks and cabinets.

When did you last take a good look at your waiting room? How clean is it? Patients expect cleanliness in doctor’s offices, and they expect the reception area to be neat. How are the carpeting and upholstery holding up? Sit in your chairs; how do they feel? Patients don’t appreciate a sore back or bottom from any chairs, especially in a medical office. Consider investing in new furniture that will be attractive and comfortable for your patients.

Look at the decor itself; is it dated or just plain “old-looking?” Any interior designer will tell you they can determine quite accurately when a space was last decorated, simply by the color and style of the materials used. If your office is stuck in the ‘90s, it’s probably time for a change. Even if you don’t find anything obvious, it’s wise to check periodically for subtle evidence of age: Find some patches of protected carpeting and flooring under stationary furniture and compare them to exposed floors.

If your color scheme is hopelessly out of date and style, or if you are just tired of it, change it. Wallpaper and carpeting should be long-wearing industrial quality; paint should be high-quality “eggshell” finish to facilitate cleaning, and everything should be professionally applied. (This is neither the time nor place for do-it-yourself experiments.) Consider updating your overhead lighting. The harsh glow of fluorescent lights amid an uninspired decor creates a sterile, uninviting atmosphere.

During renovation, get your building’s maintenance crew to fix any nagging plumbing, electrical, or heating/air conditioning problems while pipes, ducts, and wires are more readily accessible. This is also a good time to clear out old textbooks, journals, and files that you will never open again, in this digital age.

If your wall decorations are dated and unattractive, now would be a good time to replace at least some of them. This need not be an expensive proposition; a few years ago, I redecorated my exam room walls with framed photos from my travel adventures – to very positive responses from patients and staff alike. If you’re not an artist or photographer, invite a family member, or local artists or talented patients, to display some of their creations on your walls. If you get too many contributions, you can rotate them on a periodic basis.

Plants are great aesthetic accents, yet many offices have little or no plant life. Plants naturally aerate an office suite and help make it feel less stuffy. Also, multiple studies have found that plants promote productivity among office staff and create a sense of calm for apprehensive patients. Improvements like this can make a big difference. They show an attention to detail and a willingness to make your practice as inviting as possible for patients and employees alike.

Spruce-up time is also an excellent opportunity to inventory your medical equipment. We’ve all seen “vintage” offices full of gadgets that were state-of-the-art decades ago. Nostalgia is nice; but would you want to be treated by a physician whose office could be a Smithsonian exhibit titled, “Doctor’s Office Circa 1975?” Neither would your patients, for the most part; many – particularly younger ones – assume that doctors who don’t keep up with technological innovations don’t keep up with anything else, either.

If you’re planning a vacation this year (and I hope you are), that would be the perfect time for a re-do. Your patients will be spared the dust and turmoil, tradespeople won’t have to work around your office hours, and you won’t have to cancel any hours that weren’t already canceled. Best of all, you’ll come back to a clean, fresh environment.

Dr. Eastern practices dermatology and dermatologic surgery in Belleville, N.J. He is the author of numerous articles and textbook chapters, and is a longtime monthly columnist for Dermatology News. Write to him at [email protected].

The Diagnosis: Cutaneous Crohn Disease

Kinyoun and Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver staining of the labial biopsy were negative for mycobacteria and fungi, respectively. A complete blood cell count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, celiac disease serologies, stool occult blood, and stool calprotectin laboratory test results were within reference range. Magnetic resonance imaging of the pelvis demonstrated an anal fissure extending from the anal verge at the 6 o’clock position, abnormal T2 bright signal in the skin of the buttocks and perineum extending to the labia, and mild mucosal enhancement of the rectal and anal mucosa. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy and magnetic resonance elastography were unremarkable. Colonoscopy demonstrated scattered superficial erythematous patches and erosions in the rectum. Histologically, there was mild to moderately active colitis in the rectum with no evidence of chronicity. Given our patient’s labial edema and exophytic papulonodule (Figure 1) in the setting of nonspecific gastrointestinal symptoms and granulomatous dermatitis seen on pathology (Figure 2), she was diagnosed with cutaneous Crohn disease (CD).

In our patient, labial biopsy was necessary to definitively diagnose CD. Prior to biopsy of the lesion, our patient was diagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation leading to an anal fissure and skin tag due to lack of laboratory, imaging, and colonoscopy findings commonly associated with CD. Her biopsy results and gastrointestinal symptoms made these diagnoses, as well as condyloma or a large sentinel skin tag, less likely.

Extraintestinal findings of CD, especially cutaneous manifestations, are relatively frequent and may be present in as many as 44% of patients.^1,2 Cutaneous CD often is characterized based on pathogenic mechanisms as either reactive, associated, or CD specific. Reactive cutaneous manifestations include erythema nodosum, pyoderma gangrenosum, and oral aphthae. Associated cutaneous manifestations include vitiligo, palmar erythema, and palmoplantar pustulosis.² Crohn disease–specific manifestations, including genital or extragenital metastatic CD (MCD), fistulas, and oral involvement, are granulomatous in nature, similar to intestinal CD. Genital manifestations of MCD include edema, erythema, fissures, and/or ulceration of the vulva, penis, or scrotum. Labial swelling is the most common presenting symptom of MCD in females in both pediatric and adult age groups.² Lymphedema, skin tags, and condylomalike growths also can be seen but are relatively less common.²

Given the labial edema, exophytic papulonodule, and granulomatous dermatitis seen on histopathology, our patient likely fit into the MCD category.² In adults, most instances of MCD arise in the setting of well-established intestinal CD disease,3 whereas in children 86% of cases occur in patients without concurrent intestinal CD.²

Given the nonspecific and variable presentation of MCD, the differential diagnosis is broad. The differential diagnosis could include infectious etiologies such as condyloma acuminatum (human papillomavirus); syphilitic chancre; or mycobacterial, bacterial, fungal, or parasitic vulvovaginitis. Sexual abuse, sarcoidosis, Behçet disease, or hidradenitis suppurativa, among other diagnoses, also should be considered. Diagnostic workup should include biopsy of the lesion with special stains, polarizing microscopy, and tissue cultures.⁴ A thorough evaluation for gastrointestinal CD should be completed after diagnosis.³

The clinical course of vulvar CD can be unpredictable, with some cases healing spontaneously but most persisting despite treatment and sometimes prompting surgical removal.^2,4 Early recognition is crucial, as long-standing MCD lesions can be therapy resistant.⁵ Due to the rarity of the condition and lack of data, there is a lack of treatment consensus for MCD. In 2014, the American Academy of Dermatology published treatment guidelines recommending superpotent topical steroids or topical tacrolimus as first-line therapy. Next-line therapy includes oral metronidazole, followed by prednisolone if still symptomatic.³ Treatment-resistant disease can warrant treatment with immunomodulators or tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors. Our patient was started on adalimumab; after just 2 months of therapy, the labial swelling decreased and the exophytic nodule was less firm and smaller.

Metastatic CD is a rare manifestation of cutaneous CD and can be present in the absence of gastrointestinal disease.³ This case demonstrates the importance of recognizing the cutaneous signs of CD and the necessity of lesional biopsy for the diagnosis of MCD, as our patient presented with nonspecific gastrointestinal symptoms and a diagnostic workup, including endoscopies, that proved inconclusive for the diagnosis of CD.

The Diagnosis: Cutaneous Crohn Disease

Kinyoun and Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver staining of the labial biopsy were negative for mycobacteria and fungi, respectively. A complete blood cell count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, celiac disease serologies, stool occult blood, and stool calprotectin laboratory test results were within reference range. Magnetic resonance imaging of the pelvis demonstrated an anal fissure extending from the anal verge at the 6 o’clock position, abnormal T2 bright signal in the skin of the buttocks and perineum extending to the labia, and mild mucosal enhancement of the rectal and anal mucosa. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy and magnetic resonance elastography were unremarkable. Colonoscopy demonstrated scattered superficial erythematous patches and erosions in the rectum. Histologically, there was mild to moderately active colitis in the rectum with no evidence of chronicity. Given our patient’s labial edema and exophytic papulonodule (Figure 1) in the setting of nonspecific gastrointestinal symptoms and granulomatous dermatitis seen on pathology (Figure 2), she was diagnosed with cutaneous Crohn disease (CD).

In our patient, labial biopsy was necessary to definitively diagnose CD. Prior to biopsy of the lesion, our patient was diagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation leading to an anal fissure and skin tag due to lack of laboratory, imaging, and colonoscopy findings commonly associated with CD. Her biopsy results and gastrointestinal symptoms made these diagnoses, as well as condyloma or a large sentinel skin tag, less likely.

Extraintestinal findings of CD, especially cutaneous manifestations, are relatively frequent and may be present in as many as 44% of patients.^1,2 Cutaneous CD often is characterized based on pathogenic mechanisms as either reactive, associated, or CD specific. Reactive cutaneous manifestations include erythema nodosum, pyoderma gangrenosum, and oral aphthae. Associated cutaneous manifestations include vitiligo, palmar erythema, and palmoplantar pustulosis.² Crohn disease–specific manifestations, including genital or extragenital metastatic CD (MCD), fistulas, and oral involvement, are granulomatous in nature, similar to intestinal CD. Genital manifestations of MCD include edema, erythema, fissures, and/or ulceration of the vulva, penis, or scrotum. Labial swelling is the most common presenting symptom of MCD in females in both pediatric and adult age groups.² Lymphedema, skin tags, and condylomalike growths also can be seen but are relatively less common.²

Given the labial edema, exophytic papulonodule, and granulomatous dermatitis seen on histopathology, our patient likely fit into the MCD category.² In adults, most instances of MCD arise in the setting of well-established intestinal CD disease,3 whereas in children 86% of cases occur in patients without concurrent intestinal CD.²

Given the nonspecific and variable presentation of MCD, the differential diagnosis is broad. The differential diagnosis could include infectious etiologies such as condyloma acuminatum (human papillomavirus); syphilitic chancre; or mycobacterial, bacterial, fungal, or parasitic vulvovaginitis. Sexual abuse, sarcoidosis, Behçet disease, or hidradenitis suppurativa, among other diagnoses, also should be considered. Diagnostic workup should include biopsy of the lesion with special stains, polarizing microscopy, and tissue cultures.⁴ A thorough evaluation for gastrointestinal CD should be completed after diagnosis.³

The clinical course of vulvar CD can be unpredictable, with some cases healing spontaneously but most persisting despite treatment and sometimes prompting surgical removal.^2,4 Early recognition is crucial, as long-standing MCD lesions can be therapy resistant.⁵ Due to the rarity of the condition and lack of data, there is a lack of treatment consensus for MCD. In 2014, the American Academy of Dermatology published treatment guidelines recommending superpotent topical steroids or topical tacrolimus as first-line therapy. Next-line therapy includes oral metronidazole, followed by prednisolone if still symptomatic.³ Treatment-resistant disease can warrant treatment with immunomodulators or tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors. Our patient was started on adalimumab; after just 2 months of therapy, the labial swelling decreased and the exophytic nodule was less firm and smaller.

Metastatic CD is a rare manifestation of cutaneous CD and can be present in the absence of gastrointestinal disease.³ This case demonstrates the importance of recognizing the cutaneous signs of CD and the necessity of lesional biopsy for the diagnosis of MCD, as our patient presented with nonspecific gastrointestinal symptoms and a diagnostic workup, including endoscopies, that proved inconclusive for the diagnosis of CD.

The Diagnosis: Cutaneous Crohn Disease

Kinyoun and Grocott-Gomori methenamine-silver staining of the labial biopsy were negative for mycobacteria and fungi, respectively. A complete blood cell count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, celiac disease serologies, stool occult blood, and stool calprotectin laboratory test results were within reference range. Magnetic resonance imaging of the pelvis demonstrated an anal fissure extending from the anal verge at the 6 o’clock position, abnormal T2 bright signal in the skin of the buttocks and perineum extending to the labia, and mild mucosal enhancement of the rectal and anal mucosa. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy and magnetic resonance elastography were unremarkable. Colonoscopy demonstrated scattered superficial erythematous patches and erosions in the rectum. Histologically, there was mild to moderately active colitis in the rectum with no evidence of chronicity. Given our patient’s labial edema and exophytic papulonodule (Figure 1) in the setting of nonspecific gastrointestinal symptoms and granulomatous dermatitis seen on pathology (Figure 2), she was diagnosed with cutaneous Crohn disease (CD).

In our patient, labial biopsy was necessary to definitively diagnose CD. Prior to biopsy of the lesion, our patient was diagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation leading to an anal fissure and skin tag due to lack of laboratory, imaging, and colonoscopy findings commonly associated with CD. Her biopsy results and gastrointestinal symptoms made these diagnoses, as well as condyloma or a large sentinel skin tag, less likely.

Extraintestinal findings of CD, especially cutaneous manifestations, are relatively frequent and may be present in as many as 44% of patients.^1,2 Cutaneous CD often is characterized based on pathogenic mechanisms as either reactive, associated, or CD specific. Reactive cutaneous manifestations include erythema nodosum, pyoderma gangrenosum, and oral aphthae. Associated cutaneous manifestations include vitiligo, palmar erythema, and palmoplantar pustulosis.² Crohn disease–specific manifestations, including genital or extragenital metastatic CD (MCD), fistulas, and oral involvement, are granulomatous in nature, similar to intestinal CD. Genital manifestations of MCD include edema, erythema, fissures, and/or ulceration of the vulva, penis, or scrotum. Labial swelling is the most common presenting symptom of MCD in females in both pediatric and adult age groups.² Lymphedema, skin tags, and condylomalike growths also can be seen but are relatively less common.²

Given the labial edema, exophytic papulonodule, and granulomatous dermatitis seen on histopathology, our patient likely fit into the MCD category.² In adults, most instances of MCD arise in the setting of well-established intestinal CD disease,3 whereas in children 86% of cases occur in patients without concurrent intestinal CD.²

Given the nonspecific and variable presentation of MCD, the differential diagnosis is broad. The differential diagnosis could include infectious etiologies such as condyloma acuminatum (human papillomavirus); syphilitic chancre; or mycobacterial, bacterial, fungal, or parasitic vulvovaginitis. Sexual abuse, sarcoidosis, Behçet disease, or hidradenitis suppurativa, among other diagnoses, also should be considered. Diagnostic workup should include biopsy of the lesion with special stains, polarizing microscopy, and tissue cultures.⁴ A thorough evaluation for gastrointestinal CD should be completed after diagnosis.³

The clinical course of vulvar CD can be unpredictable, with some cases healing spontaneously but most persisting despite treatment and sometimes prompting surgical removal.^2,4 Early recognition is crucial, as long-standing MCD lesions can be therapy resistant.⁵ Due to the rarity of the condition and lack of data, there is a lack of treatment consensus for MCD. In 2014, the American Academy of Dermatology published treatment guidelines recommending superpotent topical steroids or topical tacrolimus as first-line therapy. Next-line therapy includes oral metronidazole, followed by prednisolone if still symptomatic.³ Treatment-resistant disease can warrant treatment with immunomodulators or tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors. Our patient was started on adalimumab; after just 2 months of therapy, the labial swelling decreased and the exophytic nodule was less firm and smaller.

Metastatic CD is a rare manifestation of cutaneous CD and can be present in the absence of gastrointestinal disease.³ This case demonstrates the importance of recognizing the cutaneous signs of CD and the necessity of lesional biopsy for the diagnosis of MCD, as our patient presented with nonspecific gastrointestinal symptoms and a diagnostic workup, including endoscopies, that proved inconclusive for the diagnosis of CD.

The buccal fat pads, previously known as Bichat’s fat pads, were first described in 1802. Everyone has them and their size is predominantly related to genetics, but similar to other facial fat pockets, they can shrink or shift over time. Buccal fat pads are often resistant to weight loss and stubbornly persist because of a slower lipolytic rate than subcutaneous fat. Some patients with round facial shapes may seek removal of the midface volume to create a more angular cheek and jawline, which enhances the zygomatic prominence and mandibular angle, creating a more contoured face.

The buccal fat pad is a submuscular fat pad surrounded by a capsule that contains three lobes with four extensions. The anterior lobe rests in front of the anterior border of the masseter muscle. The intermediate lobe extends between the masseter and buccinator muscles. The posterior lobe extends between the temporal masticatory space. These pads range from 7-11 mL in volume and grow from ages 10 to 20 years, declining in size after age 20. Given their location in the central face, they contain a rich vascular supply and are surrounded by the facial nerves, salivary glands, the parotid gland, and muscles of mastication.

The aesthetic contour of the lower face is defined by the mandibular prominence, the masseter muscle, subcutaneous fat, and the buccal fat pad. An excessive buccal extension of the buccal fat pad can give the appearance of a round face and removal or “buccal lipectomy” is used to slim the midface volume giving a sculpted, contoured cheek. Surgically, removal is a simple and safe procedure. Complications can include damage to the parotid gland, vessels, salivary duct, or facial nerve. Temporary numbness, swelling, and facial asymmetry are the most common complications.



Increasing popularity, controversy

Removal of the buccal fat pads has become popular because of celebrity media exposure, particularly among young women seeking a slim appearance to their face and jawlines. Although the procedure is relatively simple, there have been no long term studies evaluating the effects of buccal fat pad removal on facial aging.

The shrinking or shifting of fat that occurs with aging makes the removal of these fat pads in young women controversial because when removed, they cannot be effectively replaced. Shrinking of the fat pads with age, loss of midface volume, and solar elastosis can make the cheeks appear gaunt and “sucked in.”

An experienced surgeon will reduce and contour the fat pads – and will not completely remove them – to prevent a complete hollowing of the cheeks over time. Complete removal is not recommended and in men, overzealous removal in men can feminize the face.

In middle-aged men and women, the buccal fat pad can shift to the lower face and often drops below the angle of the mandible giving the appearance of jowls. Complete removal of the shifted buccal fat pad will help align the jawline; however, residual skin laxity is a complication and must be addressed to fully correct the jowls.

In my experience, the best approach to reducing buccal pads as an alternative to surgical removal is “melting” the buccal fat in a systematic, controlled manner over several sessions with either radiofrequency laser or deoxycholic acid injections. This slow, controlled method allows me to contour the cheeks appropriately in concordance with the patient’s anatomy. In younger patients or those with little skin laxity, I choose treatments with deoxycholic acid to remove the pads (which I also use to treat the jowls, as outlined in my 2020 column on treating the jowl overhang with deoxycholic acid).

In patients with more skin laxity, I perform sequential radiofrequency laser treatment over the fat pockets to simultaneously melt the fat pockets and tighten the overlying skin. Both of these methods often require three to six treatments. The controlled, cautious, treatments gradually shrink the fat pockets while preventing the overhollowing of the face.

Dr. Talakoub and Dr. Naissan O. Wesley are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at [email protected]. They had no relevant disclosures.

References

Dubin B et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1989 Feb;83(2):257-64

Jackson IT. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999 Jun;103(7):2059-60.

Matarasso A. Ann Plast Surg. 1991 May;26(5):413-8.


 

The buccal fat pads, previously known as Bichat’s fat pads, were first described in 1802. Everyone has them and their size is predominantly related to genetics, but similar to other facial fat pockets, they can shrink or shift over time. Buccal fat pads are often resistant to weight loss and stubbornly persist because of a slower lipolytic rate than subcutaneous fat. Some patients with round facial shapes may seek removal of the midface volume to create a more angular cheek and jawline, which enhances the zygomatic prominence and mandibular angle, creating a more contoured face.

The buccal fat pad is a submuscular fat pad surrounded by a capsule that contains three lobes with four extensions. The anterior lobe rests in front of the anterior border of the masseter muscle. The intermediate lobe extends between the masseter and buccinator muscles. The posterior lobe extends between the temporal masticatory space. These pads range from 7-11 mL in volume and grow from ages 10 to 20 years, declining in size after age 20. Given their location in the central face, they contain a rich vascular supply and are surrounded by the facial nerves, salivary glands, the parotid gland, and muscles of mastication.

The aesthetic contour of the lower face is defined by the mandibular prominence, the masseter muscle, subcutaneous fat, and the buccal fat pad. An excessive buccal extension of the buccal fat pad can give the appearance of a round face and removal or “buccal lipectomy” is used to slim the midface volume giving a sculpted, contoured cheek. Surgically, removal is a simple and safe procedure. Complications can include damage to the parotid gland, vessels, salivary duct, or facial nerve. Temporary numbness, swelling, and facial asymmetry are the most common complications.



Increasing popularity, controversy

Removal of the buccal fat pads has become popular because of celebrity media exposure, particularly among young women seeking a slim appearance to their face and jawlines. Although the procedure is relatively simple, there have been no long term studies evaluating the effects of buccal fat pad removal on facial aging.

The shrinking or shifting of fat that occurs with aging makes the removal of these fat pads in young women controversial because when removed, they cannot be effectively replaced. Shrinking of the fat pads with age, loss of midface volume, and solar elastosis can make the cheeks appear gaunt and “sucked in.”

An experienced surgeon will reduce and contour the fat pads – and will not completely remove them – to prevent a complete hollowing of the cheeks over time. Complete removal is not recommended and in men, overzealous removal in men can feminize the face.

In middle-aged men and women, the buccal fat pad can shift to the lower face and often drops below the angle of the mandible giving the appearance of jowls. Complete removal of the shifted buccal fat pad will help align the jawline; however, residual skin laxity is a complication and must be addressed to fully correct the jowls.

In my experience, the best approach to reducing buccal pads as an alternative to surgical removal is “melting” the buccal fat in a systematic, controlled manner over several sessions with either radiofrequency laser or deoxycholic acid injections. This slow, controlled method allows me to contour the cheeks appropriately in concordance with the patient’s anatomy. In younger patients or those with little skin laxity, I choose treatments with deoxycholic acid to remove the pads (which I also use to treat the jowls, as outlined in my 2020 column on treating the jowl overhang with deoxycholic acid).

In patients with more skin laxity, I perform sequential radiofrequency laser treatment over the fat pockets to simultaneously melt the fat pockets and tighten the overlying skin. Both of these methods often require three to six treatments. The controlled, cautious, treatments gradually shrink the fat pockets while preventing the overhollowing of the face.

Dr. Talakoub and Dr. Naissan O. Wesley are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at [email protected]. They had no relevant disclosures.

References

Dubin B et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1989 Feb;83(2):257-64

Jackson IT. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999 Jun;103(7):2059-60.

Matarasso A. Ann Plast Surg. 1991 May;26(5):413-8.


 

The buccal fat pads, previously known as Bichat’s fat pads, were first described in 1802. Everyone has them and their size is predominantly related to genetics, but similar to other facial fat pockets, they can shrink or shift over time. Buccal fat pads are often resistant to weight loss and stubbornly persist because of a slower lipolytic rate than subcutaneous fat. Some patients with round facial shapes may seek removal of the midface volume to create a more angular cheek and jawline, which enhances the zygomatic prominence and mandibular angle, creating a more contoured face.

The buccal fat pad is a submuscular fat pad surrounded by a capsule that contains three lobes with four extensions. The anterior lobe rests in front of the anterior border of the masseter muscle. The intermediate lobe extends between the masseter and buccinator muscles. The posterior lobe extends between the temporal masticatory space. These pads range from 7-11 mL in volume and grow from ages 10 to 20 years, declining in size after age 20. Given their location in the central face, they contain a rich vascular supply and are surrounded by the facial nerves, salivary glands, the parotid gland, and muscles of mastication.

The aesthetic contour of the lower face is defined by the mandibular prominence, the masseter muscle, subcutaneous fat, and the buccal fat pad. An excessive buccal extension of the buccal fat pad can give the appearance of a round face and removal or “buccal lipectomy” is used to slim the midface volume giving a sculpted, contoured cheek. Surgically, removal is a simple and safe procedure. Complications can include damage to the parotid gland, vessels, salivary duct, or facial nerve. Temporary numbness, swelling, and facial asymmetry are the most common complications.



Increasing popularity, controversy

Removal of the buccal fat pads has become popular because of celebrity media exposure, particularly among young women seeking a slim appearance to their face and jawlines. Although the procedure is relatively simple, there have been no long term studies evaluating the effects of buccal fat pad removal on facial aging.

The shrinking or shifting of fat that occurs with aging makes the removal of these fat pads in young women controversial because when removed, they cannot be effectively replaced. Shrinking of the fat pads with age, loss of midface volume, and solar elastosis can make the cheeks appear gaunt and “sucked in.”

An experienced surgeon will reduce and contour the fat pads – and will not completely remove them – to prevent a complete hollowing of the cheeks over time. Complete removal is not recommended and in men, overzealous removal in men can feminize the face.

In middle-aged men and women, the buccal fat pad can shift to the lower face and often drops below the angle of the mandible giving the appearance of jowls. Complete removal of the shifted buccal fat pad will help align the jawline; however, residual skin laxity is a complication and must be addressed to fully correct the jowls.

In my experience, the best approach to reducing buccal pads as an alternative to surgical removal is “melting” the buccal fat in a systematic, controlled manner over several sessions with either radiofrequency laser or deoxycholic acid injections. This slow, controlled method allows me to contour the cheeks appropriately in concordance with the patient’s anatomy. In younger patients or those with little skin laxity, I choose treatments with deoxycholic acid to remove the pads (which I also use to treat the jowls, as outlined in my 2020 column on treating the jowl overhang with deoxycholic acid).

In patients with more skin laxity, I perform sequential radiofrequency laser treatment over the fat pockets to simultaneously melt the fat pockets and tighten the overlying skin. Both of these methods often require three to six treatments. The controlled, cautious, treatments gradually shrink the fat pockets while preventing the overhollowing of the face.

Dr. Talakoub and Dr. Naissan O. Wesley are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at [email protected]. They had no relevant disclosures.

References

Dubin B et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1989 Feb;83(2):257-64

Jackson IT. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999 Jun;103(7):2059-60.

Matarasso A. Ann Plast Surg. 1991 May;26(5):413-8.


 

The largest combined analysis of birth outcome data for women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who took belimumab (Benlysta) during pregnancy appears to indicate that the biologic is “unlikely to cause very frequent birth defects,” but the full extent of possible risk remains unknown. The drug’s effect on B cells, immune function, and infections in exposed offspring were not captured in the data, but a separate case report published after the belimumab pregnancy data report indicates that the drug does cross the placenta and builds up in the blood of the newborn, reducing B cells at birth.

Children of women with SLE have increased birth defect risks, and standard SLE therapeutic agents (for example, cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil) have been implicated in birth defects and pregnancy loss, but birth defect data for biologic drugs such as belimumab are limited. While belimumab animal data revealed no evidence of fetal harm or pregnancy loss rates, there was evidence of immature and mature B-cell count reductions.

Belimumab is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in patients aged 5 years and older with active, autoantibody-positive SLE who are taking standard therapy, and also for those with lupus nephritis.

Michelle Petri, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and coauthors reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases on data they compiled through March 8, 2020, from belimumab clinical trials, the Belimumab Pregnancy Registry (BPR), and postmarketing/spontaneous reports that encompassed 319 pregnancies with known outcomes.

Across 18 clinical trials with 223 live births, birth defects occurred in 4 of 72 (5.6%) belimumab-exposed pregnancies and in 0 of 9 in placebo-exposed pregnancies. Pregnancy loss (excluding elective terminations) occurred in 31.8% (35 of 110) of belimumab-exposed women and 43.8% (7 of 16) of placebo-exposed women in clinical trials. In the BPR retrospective cohort, 4.2% had pregnancy loss. Postmarketing and spontaneous reports had a pregnancy loss rate of 31.4% (43 of 137). Concomitant medications, confounding factors, and/or missing data were noted in all belimumab-exposed women in clinical trials and the BPR cohort. Dr. Petri and colleagues reported no consistent pattern of birth defects across datasets but stated: “Low numbers of exposed pregnancies, presence of confounding factors/other biases, and incomplete information preclude informed recommendations regarding risk of birth defects and pregnancy loss with belimumab use.”

In an interview, coauthor Megan E. B. Clowse, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and director of the division of rheumatology and immunology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said that “the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases article provides some reassurance that belimumab is unlikely to cause very frequent birth defects. It is clearly not in the risk-range for thalidomide or mycophenolate. However, due to the complexity of collecting these data, this manuscript can’t explore the full extent of possible risks. It also did not provide information about B cells, immune function, or infection risks in exposed offspring.”

A separate case report by Helle Bitter of the department of rheumatology at Sorlandet Hospital Kristiansand (Norway) in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases is the first to show transplacental passage of belimumab in humans. Other prior reports have shown such transplacental passage for monoclonal IgG antibodies (tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and rituximab). Even though the last infusion was given late in the second trimester, belimumab was present in cord serum at birth, suggesting much higher concentrations before treatment was stopped. While B-cell numbers were reduced at birth, they returned to normal ranges by 4 months post partum when they were undetectable. In the mother, B-cell numbers remained low throughout the study period extending to 7 months after delivery. The authors stated that the child had a normal vaccination response, and except for the reduced B-cell levels at birth, had no adverse effects of prenatal exposure to maternal medication through age 6 years.

“The belimumab transfer in the case report is the level that we would anticipate based on similar studies in infant/mother pairs on other IgG1 antibody biologics like adalimumab – about 60% higher than the maternal level at birth,” Dr. Clowse said. “That the baby has very low B cells at birth is worrisome to me, demonstrating the lasting effect of maternal belimumab on the infant’s immune system, even when the drug was stopped 14 weeks prior to delivery. While this single infant did not have problems with infections, with more widespread use it seems possible that infants would be found to have higher rates of infections after in utero belimumab exposure.”

The field of lupus research greatly needs controlled studies of newer biologics in pregnancy, Dr. Clowse said. “Women with active lupus in pregnancy – particularly with active lupus nephritis – continue to suffer tragic outcomes at an alarming rate. Newer treatments for lupus nephritis provide some hope that we might be able to control lupus nephritis in pregnancy more effectively. The available data suggests the risks of these medications are not so large as to make studies unreasonable. Our current data doesn’t allow us to sufficiently balance the potential risks and benefits in a way that provides clinically useful guidance. Trials of these medications, however, would enable us to identify improved treatment strategies that could result in healthier women, pregnancies, and babies.”

GlaxoSmithKline funded the study. Dr. Clowse reported receiving consulting fees and grants from UCB and GlaxoSmithKline that relate to pregnancy in women with lupus.

The largest combined analysis of birth outcome data for women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who took belimumab (Benlysta) during pregnancy appears to indicate that the biologic is “unlikely to cause very frequent birth defects,” but the full extent of possible risk remains unknown. The drug’s effect on B cells, immune function, and infections in exposed offspring were not captured in the data, but a separate case report published after the belimumab pregnancy data report indicates that the drug does cross the placenta and builds up in the blood of the newborn, reducing B cells at birth.

Children of women with SLE have increased birth defect risks, and standard SLE therapeutic agents (for example, cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil) have been implicated in birth defects and pregnancy loss, but birth defect data for biologic drugs such as belimumab are limited. While belimumab animal data revealed no evidence of fetal harm or pregnancy loss rates, there was evidence of immature and mature B-cell count reductions.

Belimumab is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in patients aged 5 years and older with active, autoantibody-positive SLE who are taking standard therapy, and also for those with lupus nephritis.

Michelle Petri, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and coauthors reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases on data they compiled through March 8, 2020, from belimumab clinical trials, the Belimumab Pregnancy Registry (BPR), and postmarketing/spontaneous reports that encompassed 319 pregnancies with known outcomes.

Across 18 clinical trials with 223 live births, birth defects occurred in 4 of 72 (5.6%) belimumab-exposed pregnancies and in 0 of 9 in placebo-exposed pregnancies. Pregnancy loss (excluding elective terminations) occurred in 31.8% (35 of 110) of belimumab-exposed women and 43.8% (7 of 16) of placebo-exposed women in clinical trials. In the BPR retrospective cohort, 4.2% had pregnancy loss. Postmarketing and spontaneous reports had a pregnancy loss rate of 31.4% (43 of 137). Concomitant medications, confounding factors, and/or missing data were noted in all belimumab-exposed women in clinical trials and the BPR cohort. Dr. Petri and colleagues reported no consistent pattern of birth defects across datasets but stated: “Low numbers of exposed pregnancies, presence of confounding factors/other biases, and incomplete information preclude informed recommendations regarding risk of birth defects and pregnancy loss with belimumab use.”

In an interview, coauthor Megan E. B. Clowse, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and director of the division of rheumatology and immunology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said that “the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases article provides some reassurance that belimumab is unlikely to cause very frequent birth defects. It is clearly not in the risk-range for thalidomide or mycophenolate. However, due to the complexity of collecting these data, this manuscript can’t explore the full extent of possible risks. It also did not provide information about B cells, immune function, or infection risks in exposed offspring.”

A separate case report by Helle Bitter of the department of rheumatology at Sorlandet Hospital Kristiansand (Norway) in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases is the first to show transplacental passage of belimumab in humans. Other prior reports have shown such transplacental passage for monoclonal IgG antibodies (tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and rituximab). Even though the last infusion was given late in the second trimester, belimumab was present in cord serum at birth, suggesting much higher concentrations before treatment was stopped. While B-cell numbers were reduced at birth, they returned to normal ranges by 4 months post partum when they were undetectable. In the mother, B-cell numbers remained low throughout the study period extending to 7 months after delivery. The authors stated that the child had a normal vaccination response, and except for the reduced B-cell levels at birth, had no adverse effects of prenatal exposure to maternal medication through age 6 years.

“The belimumab transfer in the case report is the level that we would anticipate based on similar studies in infant/mother pairs on other IgG1 antibody biologics like adalimumab – about 60% higher than the maternal level at birth,” Dr. Clowse said. “That the baby has very low B cells at birth is worrisome to me, demonstrating the lasting effect of maternal belimumab on the infant’s immune system, even when the drug was stopped 14 weeks prior to delivery. While this single infant did not have problems with infections, with more widespread use it seems possible that infants would be found to have higher rates of infections after in utero belimumab exposure.”

The field of lupus research greatly needs controlled studies of newer biologics in pregnancy, Dr. Clowse said. “Women with active lupus in pregnancy – particularly with active lupus nephritis – continue to suffer tragic outcomes at an alarming rate. Newer treatments for lupus nephritis provide some hope that we might be able to control lupus nephritis in pregnancy more effectively. The available data suggests the risks of these medications are not so large as to make studies unreasonable. Our current data doesn’t allow us to sufficiently balance the potential risks and benefits in a way that provides clinically useful guidance. Trials of these medications, however, would enable us to identify improved treatment strategies that could result in healthier women, pregnancies, and babies.”

GlaxoSmithKline funded the study. Dr. Clowse reported receiving consulting fees and grants from UCB and GlaxoSmithKline that relate to pregnancy in women with lupus.

The largest combined analysis of birth outcome data for women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who took belimumab (Benlysta) during pregnancy appears to indicate that the biologic is “unlikely to cause very frequent birth defects,” but the full extent of possible risk remains unknown. The drug’s effect on B cells, immune function, and infections in exposed offspring were not captured in the data, but a separate case report published after the belimumab pregnancy data report indicates that the drug does cross the placenta and builds up in the blood of the newborn, reducing B cells at birth.

Children of women with SLE have increased birth defect risks, and standard SLE therapeutic agents (for example, cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil) have been implicated in birth defects and pregnancy loss, but birth defect data for biologic drugs such as belimumab are limited. While belimumab animal data revealed no evidence of fetal harm or pregnancy loss rates, there was evidence of immature and mature B-cell count reductions.

Belimumab is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in patients aged 5 years and older with active, autoantibody-positive SLE who are taking standard therapy, and also for those with lupus nephritis.

Michelle Petri, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and coauthors reported in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases on data they compiled through March 8, 2020, from belimumab clinical trials, the Belimumab Pregnancy Registry (BPR), and postmarketing/spontaneous reports that encompassed 319 pregnancies with known outcomes.

Across 18 clinical trials with 223 live births, birth defects occurred in 4 of 72 (5.6%) belimumab-exposed pregnancies and in 0 of 9 in placebo-exposed pregnancies. Pregnancy loss (excluding elective terminations) occurred in 31.8% (35 of 110) of belimumab-exposed women and 43.8% (7 of 16) of placebo-exposed women in clinical trials. In the BPR retrospective cohort, 4.2% had pregnancy loss. Postmarketing and spontaneous reports had a pregnancy loss rate of 31.4% (43 of 137). Concomitant medications, confounding factors, and/or missing data were noted in all belimumab-exposed women in clinical trials and the BPR cohort. Dr. Petri and colleagues reported no consistent pattern of birth defects across datasets but stated: “Low numbers of exposed pregnancies, presence of confounding factors/other biases, and incomplete information preclude informed recommendations regarding risk of birth defects and pregnancy loss with belimumab use.”

In an interview, coauthor Megan E. B. Clowse, MD, MPH, associate professor of medicine and director of the division of rheumatology and immunology at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said that “the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases article provides some reassurance that belimumab is unlikely to cause very frequent birth defects. It is clearly not in the risk-range for thalidomide or mycophenolate. However, due to the complexity of collecting these data, this manuscript can’t explore the full extent of possible risks. It also did not provide information about B cells, immune function, or infection risks in exposed offspring.”

A separate case report by Helle Bitter of the department of rheumatology at Sorlandet Hospital Kristiansand (Norway) in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases is the first to show transplacental passage of belimumab in humans. Other prior reports have shown such transplacental passage for monoclonal IgG antibodies (tumor necrosis factor inhibitors and rituximab). Even though the last infusion was given late in the second trimester, belimumab was present in cord serum at birth, suggesting much higher concentrations before treatment was stopped. While B-cell numbers were reduced at birth, they returned to normal ranges by 4 months post partum when they were undetectable. In the mother, B-cell numbers remained low throughout the study period extending to 7 months after delivery. The authors stated that the child had a normal vaccination response, and except for the reduced B-cell levels at birth, had no adverse effects of prenatal exposure to maternal medication through age 6 years.

“The belimumab transfer in the case report is the level that we would anticipate based on similar studies in infant/mother pairs on other IgG1 antibody biologics like adalimumab – about 60% higher than the maternal level at birth,” Dr. Clowse said. “That the baby has very low B cells at birth is worrisome to me, demonstrating the lasting effect of maternal belimumab on the infant’s immune system, even when the drug was stopped 14 weeks prior to delivery. While this single infant did not have problems with infections, with more widespread use it seems possible that infants would be found to have higher rates of infections after in utero belimumab exposure.”

The field of lupus research greatly needs controlled studies of newer biologics in pregnancy, Dr. Clowse said. “Women with active lupus in pregnancy – particularly with active lupus nephritis – continue to suffer tragic outcomes at an alarming rate. Newer treatments for lupus nephritis provide some hope that we might be able to control lupus nephritis in pregnancy more effectively. The available data suggests the risks of these medications are not so large as to make studies unreasonable. Our current data doesn’t allow us to sufficiently balance the potential risks and benefits in a way that provides clinically useful guidance. Trials of these medications, however, would enable us to identify improved treatment strategies that could result in healthier women, pregnancies, and babies.”

GlaxoSmithKline funded the study. Dr. Clowse reported receiving consulting fees and grants from UCB and GlaxoSmithKline that relate to pregnancy in women with lupus.

When it comes to treating atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults with topical therapies, new guidelines from the American Academy of Dermatology rate the existing evidence as “strong” for prescription moisturizers, topical calcineurin inhibitors, topical corticosteroids, and topical phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE-4) and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. The guidelines also conditionally recommend the use of bathing and wet wrap therapy but recommend against the use of topical antimicrobials, antiseptics, and antihistamines.

The development updates the AAD’s 2014 recommendations for managing AD with topical therapies, published almost 9 years ago. “At that time, the only U.S. FDA–approved systemic medication for atopic dermatitis was prednisone – universally felt amongst dermatologists to be the least appropriate systemic medication for this condition, at least chronically,” Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, who cochaired a 14-member multidisciplinary work group that assembled the updated guidelines, told this news organization in an interview.

“Since 2017, there have been two different biologic medications approved for moderate to severe AD (dupilumab and tralokinumab) with certainly a third or more right around the corner. There have been two new oral agents approved for moderate to severe AD – upadacitinib and abrocitinib – with others on the way,” he noted. While these are not topical therapies, the purview of the newly released guidelines, he said, “there have also been new topical medications approved since that time (crisaborole and ruxolitinib). It was high time for an update.”

For the new guidelines, which were published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Sidbury, chief of the division of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital, guidelines cochair Dawn M. R. Davis, MD, a dermatologist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues conducted a systematic review of evidence regarding the use of nonprescription topical agents such as moisturizers, bathing practices, and wet wraps, as well as topical pharmacologic modalities such as corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, JAK inhibitors, PDE-4 inhibitors, antimicrobials, and antihistamines.

Next, the work group applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence and formulating and grading clinical recommendations based on relevant randomized trials in the medical literature.
 

12 recommendations

Of the 12 recommendations made for adults with AD, the work group ranked 7 as “strong” based on the evidence reviewed, and the rest as “conditional.” The “strong” recommendations include the use of moisturizers; the use of tacrolimus 0.03% or 0.1%; the use of pimecrolimus 1% cream for mild to moderate AD; use of topical steroids; intermittent use of medium-potency topical corticosteroids as maintenance therapy to reduce flares and relapse; the use of the topical PDE-4 inhibitor crisaborole, and the use of the topical JAK inhibitor ruxolitinib.

Regarding ruxolitinib cream 1.5%, the work group advised that the treatment area “should not exceed 20% body surface area, and a maximum of 60 grams should be applied per week; these stipulations are aimed at reducing systemic absorption, as black box warnings include serious infections, mortality, malignancies (for example, lymphoma), major adverse cardiovascular events, and thrombosis.”

Conditional recommendations in the guidelines include those for bathing for treatment and maintenance and the use of wet dressings, and those against the use of topical antimicrobials, topical antihistamines, and topical antiseptics.

According to Dr. Sidbury, the topic of bathing generated robust discussion among the work group members. “Though [each group member] has strong opinions and individual practice styles, they were also able to recognize that the evidence is all that matters in a project like this, which led to a ‘conditional’ recommendation regarding bathing frequency backed by ‘low’ evidence,” he said. “While this may seem like ‘guidance’ that doesn’t ‘guide,’ I would argue it informs the guideline consumer exactly where we are in terms of this question and allows them to use their best judgment and experience as their true north here.”

In the realm of topical steroids, Dr. Sidbury said that topical steroid addiction (TSA) and topical steroid withdrawal (TSW) have been a “controversial but persistent concern” from some patients and providers. “Two systematic reviews of this topic were mentioned, and it was made clear that the evidence base [for the concepts] is weak,” he said. “With that important caveat ,the guideline committee delineated both a definition of TSW/TSA and potential risk factors.”

Dr. Sidbury marveled at the potential impact of newer medicines such as crisaborole and ruxolitinib on younger AD patients as well. Crisaborole is now Food and Drug Administration approved down to 3 months of age for mild to moderate AD. “This is extraordinary and expands treatment options for all providers at an age when parents and providers are most conservative in their practice,” he said. “Ruxolitinib, also nonsteroidal, is FDA approved for mild to moderate AD down to 12 years of age. Having spent a good percentage of my practice years either being able to offer only topical steroids, or later topical steroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors like tacrolimus or pimecrolimus, having additional options is wonderful.”

In the guidelines, the work group noted that “significant gaps remain” in current understanding of various topical AD therapies. “Studies are needed which examine quality of life and other patient-important outcomes, changes to the cutaneous microbiome, as well as long term follow-up, and use in special and diverse populations (e.g., pregnancy, lactation, immunosuppression, multiple comorbidities, skin of color, pediatric),” they wrote. “Furthermore, increased use of new systemic AD treatment options (dupilumab, tralokinumab, abrocitinib, upadacitinib) in patients with moderate to severe disease may result in a selection bias toward milder disease in current and future AD topical therapy studies.”

Use of topical therapies to manage AD in pediatric patients will be covered in a forthcoming AAD guideline. The first updated AD guideline, on comorbidities associated with AD in adults, was released in January 2022.

Dr. Sidbury reported that he serves as an advisory board member for Pfizer, a principal investigator for Regeneron, an investigator for Brickell Biotech and Galderma USA, and a consultant for Galderma Global and Microes. Other work group members reported having financial disclosures with many pharmaceutical companies.

When it comes to treating atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults with topical therapies, new guidelines from the American Academy of Dermatology rate the existing evidence as “strong” for prescription moisturizers, topical calcineurin inhibitors, topical corticosteroids, and topical phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE-4) and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. The guidelines also conditionally recommend the use of bathing and wet wrap therapy but recommend against the use of topical antimicrobials, antiseptics, and antihistamines.

The development updates the AAD’s 2014 recommendations for managing AD with topical therapies, published almost 9 years ago. “At that time, the only U.S. FDA–approved systemic medication for atopic dermatitis was prednisone – universally felt amongst dermatologists to be the least appropriate systemic medication for this condition, at least chronically,” Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, who cochaired a 14-member multidisciplinary work group that assembled the updated guidelines, told this news organization in an interview.

“Since 2017, there have been two different biologic medications approved for moderate to severe AD (dupilumab and tralokinumab) with certainly a third or more right around the corner. There have been two new oral agents approved for moderate to severe AD – upadacitinib and abrocitinib – with others on the way,” he noted. While these are not topical therapies, the purview of the newly released guidelines, he said, “there have also been new topical medications approved since that time (crisaborole and ruxolitinib). It was high time for an update.”

For the new guidelines, which were published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Sidbury, chief of the division of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital, guidelines cochair Dawn M. R. Davis, MD, a dermatologist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues conducted a systematic review of evidence regarding the use of nonprescription topical agents such as moisturizers, bathing practices, and wet wraps, as well as topical pharmacologic modalities such as corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, JAK inhibitors, PDE-4 inhibitors, antimicrobials, and antihistamines.

Next, the work group applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence and formulating and grading clinical recommendations based on relevant randomized trials in the medical literature.
 

12 recommendations

Of the 12 recommendations made for adults with AD, the work group ranked 7 as “strong” based on the evidence reviewed, and the rest as “conditional.” The “strong” recommendations include the use of moisturizers; the use of tacrolimus 0.03% or 0.1%; the use of pimecrolimus 1% cream for mild to moderate AD; use of topical steroids; intermittent use of medium-potency topical corticosteroids as maintenance therapy to reduce flares and relapse; the use of the topical PDE-4 inhibitor crisaborole, and the use of the topical JAK inhibitor ruxolitinib.

Regarding ruxolitinib cream 1.5%, the work group advised that the treatment area “should not exceed 20% body surface area, and a maximum of 60 grams should be applied per week; these stipulations are aimed at reducing systemic absorption, as black box warnings include serious infections, mortality, malignancies (for example, lymphoma), major adverse cardiovascular events, and thrombosis.”

Conditional recommendations in the guidelines include those for bathing for treatment and maintenance and the use of wet dressings, and those against the use of topical antimicrobials, topical antihistamines, and topical antiseptics.

According to Dr. Sidbury, the topic of bathing generated robust discussion among the work group members. “Though [each group member] has strong opinions and individual practice styles, they were also able to recognize that the evidence is all that matters in a project like this, which led to a ‘conditional’ recommendation regarding bathing frequency backed by ‘low’ evidence,” he said. “While this may seem like ‘guidance’ that doesn’t ‘guide,’ I would argue it informs the guideline consumer exactly where we are in terms of this question and allows them to use their best judgment and experience as their true north here.”

In the realm of topical steroids, Dr. Sidbury said that topical steroid addiction (TSA) and topical steroid withdrawal (TSW) have been a “controversial but persistent concern” from some patients and providers. “Two systematic reviews of this topic were mentioned, and it was made clear that the evidence base [for the concepts] is weak,” he said. “With that important caveat ,the guideline committee delineated both a definition of TSW/TSA and potential risk factors.”

Dr. Sidbury marveled at the potential impact of newer medicines such as crisaborole and ruxolitinib on younger AD patients as well. Crisaborole is now Food and Drug Administration approved down to 3 months of age for mild to moderate AD. “This is extraordinary and expands treatment options for all providers at an age when parents and providers are most conservative in their practice,” he said. “Ruxolitinib, also nonsteroidal, is FDA approved for mild to moderate AD down to 12 years of age. Having spent a good percentage of my practice years either being able to offer only topical steroids, or later topical steroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors like tacrolimus or pimecrolimus, having additional options is wonderful.”

In the guidelines, the work group noted that “significant gaps remain” in current understanding of various topical AD therapies. “Studies are needed which examine quality of life and other patient-important outcomes, changes to the cutaneous microbiome, as well as long term follow-up, and use in special and diverse populations (e.g., pregnancy, lactation, immunosuppression, multiple comorbidities, skin of color, pediatric),” they wrote. “Furthermore, increased use of new systemic AD treatment options (dupilumab, tralokinumab, abrocitinib, upadacitinib) in patients with moderate to severe disease may result in a selection bias toward milder disease in current and future AD topical therapy studies.”

Use of topical therapies to manage AD in pediatric patients will be covered in a forthcoming AAD guideline. The first updated AD guideline, on comorbidities associated with AD in adults, was released in January 2022.

Dr. Sidbury reported that he serves as an advisory board member for Pfizer, a principal investigator for Regeneron, an investigator for Brickell Biotech and Galderma USA, and a consultant for Galderma Global and Microes. Other work group members reported having financial disclosures with many pharmaceutical companies.

When it comes to treating atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults with topical therapies, new guidelines from the American Academy of Dermatology rate the existing evidence as “strong” for prescription moisturizers, topical calcineurin inhibitors, topical corticosteroids, and topical phosphodiesterase-4 (PDE-4) and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. The guidelines also conditionally recommend the use of bathing and wet wrap therapy but recommend against the use of topical antimicrobials, antiseptics, and antihistamines.

The development updates the AAD’s 2014 recommendations for managing AD with topical therapies, published almost 9 years ago. “At that time, the only U.S. FDA–approved systemic medication for atopic dermatitis was prednisone – universally felt amongst dermatologists to be the least appropriate systemic medication for this condition, at least chronically,” Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, who cochaired a 14-member multidisciplinary work group that assembled the updated guidelines, told this news organization in an interview.

“Since 2017, there have been two different biologic medications approved for moderate to severe AD (dupilumab and tralokinumab) with certainly a third or more right around the corner. There have been two new oral agents approved for moderate to severe AD – upadacitinib and abrocitinib – with others on the way,” he noted. While these are not topical therapies, the purview of the newly released guidelines, he said, “there have also been new topical medications approved since that time (crisaborole and ruxolitinib). It was high time for an update.”

For the new guidelines, which were published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Sidbury, chief of the division of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital, guidelines cochair Dawn M. R. Davis, MD, a dermatologist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., and colleagues conducted a systematic review of evidence regarding the use of nonprescription topical agents such as moisturizers, bathing practices, and wet wraps, as well as topical pharmacologic modalities such as corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, JAK inhibitors, PDE-4 inhibitors, antimicrobials, and antihistamines.

Next, the work group applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence and formulating and grading clinical recommendations based on relevant randomized trials in the medical literature.
 

12 recommendations

Of the 12 recommendations made for adults with AD, the work group ranked 7 as “strong” based on the evidence reviewed, and the rest as “conditional.” The “strong” recommendations include the use of moisturizers; the use of tacrolimus 0.03% or 0.1%; the use of pimecrolimus 1% cream for mild to moderate AD; use of topical steroids; intermittent use of medium-potency topical corticosteroids as maintenance therapy to reduce flares and relapse; the use of the topical PDE-4 inhibitor crisaborole, and the use of the topical JAK inhibitor ruxolitinib.

Regarding ruxolitinib cream 1.5%, the work group advised that the treatment area “should not exceed 20% body surface area, and a maximum of 60 grams should be applied per week; these stipulations are aimed at reducing systemic absorption, as black box warnings include serious infections, mortality, malignancies (for example, lymphoma), major adverse cardiovascular events, and thrombosis.”

Conditional recommendations in the guidelines include those for bathing for treatment and maintenance and the use of wet dressings, and those against the use of topical antimicrobials, topical antihistamines, and topical antiseptics.

According to Dr. Sidbury, the topic of bathing generated robust discussion among the work group members. “Though [each group member] has strong opinions and individual practice styles, they were also able to recognize that the evidence is all that matters in a project like this, which led to a ‘conditional’ recommendation regarding bathing frequency backed by ‘low’ evidence,” he said. “While this may seem like ‘guidance’ that doesn’t ‘guide,’ I would argue it informs the guideline consumer exactly where we are in terms of this question and allows them to use their best judgment and experience as their true north here.”

In the realm of topical steroids, Dr. Sidbury said that topical steroid addiction (TSA) and topical steroid withdrawal (TSW) have been a “controversial but persistent concern” from some patients and providers. “Two systematic reviews of this topic were mentioned, and it was made clear that the evidence base [for the concepts] is weak,” he said. “With that important caveat ,the guideline committee delineated both a definition of TSW/TSA and potential risk factors.”

Dr. Sidbury marveled at the potential impact of newer medicines such as crisaborole and ruxolitinib on younger AD patients as well. Crisaborole is now Food and Drug Administration approved down to 3 months of age for mild to moderate AD. “This is extraordinary and expands treatment options for all providers at an age when parents and providers are most conservative in their practice,” he said. “Ruxolitinib, also nonsteroidal, is FDA approved for mild to moderate AD down to 12 years of age. Having spent a good percentage of my practice years either being able to offer only topical steroids, or later topical steroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors like tacrolimus or pimecrolimus, having additional options is wonderful.”

In the guidelines, the work group noted that “significant gaps remain” in current understanding of various topical AD therapies. “Studies are needed which examine quality of life and other patient-important outcomes, changes to the cutaneous microbiome, as well as long term follow-up, and use in special and diverse populations (e.g., pregnancy, lactation, immunosuppression, multiple comorbidities, skin of color, pediatric),” they wrote. “Furthermore, increased use of new systemic AD treatment options (dupilumab, tralokinumab, abrocitinib, upadacitinib) in patients with moderate to severe disease may result in a selection bias toward milder disease in current and future AD topical therapy studies.”

Use of topical therapies to manage AD in pediatric patients will be covered in a forthcoming AAD guideline. The first updated AD guideline, on comorbidities associated with AD in adults, was released in January 2022.

Dr. Sidbury reported that he serves as an advisory board member for Pfizer, a principal investigator for Regeneron, an investigator for Brickell Biotech and Galderma USA, and a consultant for Galderma Global and Microes. Other work group members reported having financial disclosures with many pharmaceutical companies.

To the Editor:

Surgical wounds on the lower leg are challenging to manage because venous stasis, bacterial colonization, and high tension may contribute to protracted healing. Advances in technology led to the development of novel, polymer-based wound-healing modalities that hold promise for the management of these wounds.

A 75-year-old man presented with a well-differentiated squamous cell carcinoma with a 3-mm depth of invasion on the left pretibial region. His comorbidities were notable for hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, varicose veins, myocardial infarction, peripheral vascular disease, and a 32 pack-year cigarette smoking history. Current medications included clopidogrel bisulfate and warfarin sodium to manage a recently placed coronary artery stent.

The tumor was cleared after 2 stages of Mohs micrographic surgery with excision down to tibialis anterior fascia (Figure 1A). The resultant defect measured 43×33 mm in area and 9 mm in depth (wound size, 12,771 mm³). Reconstructive options were discussed, including random-pattern flap repair and skin graft. Given the patient’s risk of bleeding, the decision was made to forego a flap repair. Additionally, the patient was a heavy smoker and could not comply with the wound care and elevation and ambulation restrictions required for optimal skin graft care. Therefore, a decision was made to proceed with secondary intention healing using a methacrylate polymer powder dressing.

After achieving hemostasis, a novel 10-mg sterile, biologically inert methacrylate polymer powder dressing was poured over the wound in a uniform layer to fill and seal the entire wound surface (Figure 1B). Sterile normal saline 0.1 mL was sprayed onto the powder to activate particle aggregation. No secondary dressing was used, and the patient was permitted to get the dressing wet after 48 hours.

The dressing was changed in a similar fashion 4 weeks after application, following gentle debridement with gauze and normal saline. Eight weeks after surgery, the wound exhibited healthy granulation tissue and measured 5×6 mm in area and 2 mm in depth (wound size, 60 mm³), which represented a 99.5% reduction in wound size (Figure 1C). The dressing was not painful, and there were no reported adverse effects. The patient continued to smoke and ambulate fully throughout this period. No antibiotics were used.

Methacrylate polymer powder dressings are a novel and sophisticated dressing modality with great promise for the management of surgical wounds on the lower limb. The dressing is a sterile powder consisting of 84.8% poly-2-hydroxyethylmethacrylate, 14.9% poly-2-hydroxypropylmethacrylate, and 0.3% sodium deoxycholate. These hydrophilic polymers have a covalent methacrylate backbone with a hydroxyl aliphatic side chain. When saline or wound exudate contacts the powder, the spheres hydrate and nonreversibly aggregate to form a moist, flexible dressing that conforms to the topography of the wound and seals it (Figure 2).¹

Once the spheres have aggregated, they are designed to orient in a honeycomb formation with 4- to 10-nm openings that serve as capillary channels (Figure 3). This porous architecture of the polymer is essential for adequate moisture management. It allows for vapor transpiration at a rate of 12 L/m² per day, which ensures the capillary flow from the moist wound surface is evenly distributed through the dressing, contributing to its 68% water content. Notably, this approximately three-fifths water composition is similar to the water makeup of human skin. Optimized moisture management is theorized to enhance epithelial migration, stimulate angiogenesis, retain growth factors, promote autolytic debridement, and maintain ideal voltage and oxygen gradients for wound healing. The risk for infection is not increased by the existence of these pores, as their small size does not allow for bacterial migration.¹

This case demonstrates the effectiveness of using a methacrylate polymer powder dressing to promote timely wound healing in a poorly vascularized lower leg surgical wound. The low maintenance, user-friendly dressing was changed at monthly intervals, which spared the patient the inconvenience and pain associated with the repeated application of more conventional primary and secondary dressings. The dressing was well tolerated and resulted in a 99.5% reduction in wound size. Further studies are needed to investigate the utility of this promising technology.

To the Editor:

Surgical wounds on the lower leg are challenging to manage because venous stasis, bacterial colonization, and high tension may contribute to protracted healing. Advances in technology led to the development of novel, polymer-based wound-healing modalities that hold promise for the management of these wounds.

A 75-year-old man presented with a well-differentiated squamous cell carcinoma with a 3-mm depth of invasion on the left pretibial region. His comorbidities were notable for hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, varicose veins, myocardial infarction, peripheral vascular disease, and a 32 pack-year cigarette smoking history. Current medications included clopidogrel bisulfate and warfarin sodium to manage a recently placed coronary artery stent.

The tumor was cleared after 2 stages of Mohs micrographic surgery with excision down to tibialis anterior fascia (Figure 1A). The resultant defect measured 43×33 mm in area and 9 mm in depth (wound size, 12,771 mm³). Reconstructive options were discussed, including random-pattern flap repair and skin graft. Given the patient’s risk of bleeding, the decision was made to forego a flap repair. Additionally, the patient was a heavy smoker and could not comply with the wound care and elevation and ambulation restrictions required for optimal skin graft care. Therefore, a decision was made to proceed with secondary intention healing using a methacrylate polymer powder dressing.

After achieving hemostasis, a novel 10-mg sterile, biologically inert methacrylate polymer powder dressing was poured over the wound in a uniform layer to fill and seal the entire wound surface (Figure 1B). Sterile normal saline 0.1 mL was sprayed onto the powder to activate particle aggregation. No secondary dressing was used, and the patient was permitted to get the dressing wet after 48 hours.

The dressing was changed in a similar fashion 4 weeks after application, following gentle debridement with gauze and normal saline. Eight weeks after surgery, the wound exhibited healthy granulation tissue and measured 5×6 mm in area and 2 mm in depth (wound size, 60 mm³), which represented a 99.5% reduction in wound size (Figure 1C). The dressing was not painful, and there were no reported adverse effects. The patient continued to smoke and ambulate fully throughout this period. No antibiotics were used.

Methacrylate polymer powder dressings are a novel and sophisticated dressing modality with great promise for the management of surgical wounds on the lower limb. The dressing is a sterile powder consisting of 84.8% poly-2-hydroxyethylmethacrylate, 14.9% poly-2-hydroxypropylmethacrylate, and 0.3% sodium deoxycholate. These hydrophilic polymers have a covalent methacrylate backbone with a hydroxyl aliphatic side chain. When saline or wound exudate contacts the powder, the spheres hydrate and nonreversibly aggregate to form a moist, flexible dressing that conforms to the topography of the wound and seals it (Figure 2).¹

Once the spheres have aggregated, they are designed to orient in a honeycomb formation with 4- to 10-nm openings that serve as capillary channels (Figure 3). This porous architecture of the polymer is essential for adequate moisture management. It allows for vapor transpiration at a rate of 12 L/m² per day, which ensures the capillary flow from the moist wound surface is evenly distributed through the dressing, contributing to its 68% water content. Notably, this approximately three-fifths water composition is similar to the water makeup of human skin. Optimized moisture management is theorized to enhance epithelial migration, stimulate angiogenesis, retain growth factors, promote autolytic debridement, and maintain ideal voltage and oxygen gradients for wound healing. The risk for infection is not increased by the existence of these pores, as their small size does not allow for bacterial migration.¹

This case demonstrates the effectiveness of using a methacrylate polymer powder dressing to promote timely wound healing in a poorly vascularized lower leg surgical wound. The low maintenance, user-friendly dressing was changed at monthly intervals, which spared the patient the inconvenience and pain associated with the repeated application of more conventional primary and secondary dressings. The dressing was well tolerated and resulted in a 99.5% reduction in wound size. Further studies are needed to investigate the utility of this promising technology.

To the Editor:

Surgical wounds on the lower leg are challenging to manage because venous stasis, bacterial colonization, and high tension may contribute to protracted healing. Advances in technology led to the development of novel, polymer-based wound-healing modalities that hold promise for the management of these wounds.

A 75-year-old man presented with a well-differentiated squamous cell carcinoma with a 3-mm depth of invasion on the left pretibial region. His comorbidities were notable for hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, varicose veins, myocardial infarction, peripheral vascular disease, and a 32 pack-year cigarette smoking history. Current medications included clopidogrel bisulfate and warfarin sodium to manage a recently placed coronary artery stent.

The tumor was cleared after 2 stages of Mohs micrographic surgery with excision down to tibialis anterior fascia (Figure 1A). The resultant defect measured 43×33 mm in area and 9 mm in depth (wound size, 12,771 mm³). Reconstructive options were discussed, including random-pattern flap repair and skin graft. Given the patient’s risk of bleeding, the decision was made to forego a flap repair. Additionally, the patient was a heavy smoker and could not comply with the wound care and elevation and ambulation restrictions required for optimal skin graft care. Therefore, a decision was made to proceed with secondary intention healing using a methacrylate polymer powder dressing.

After achieving hemostasis, a novel 10-mg sterile, biologically inert methacrylate polymer powder dressing was poured over the wound in a uniform layer to fill and seal the entire wound surface (Figure 1B). Sterile normal saline 0.1 mL was sprayed onto the powder to activate particle aggregation. No secondary dressing was used, and the patient was permitted to get the dressing wet after 48 hours.

The dressing was changed in a similar fashion 4 weeks after application, following gentle debridement with gauze and normal saline. Eight weeks after surgery, the wound exhibited healthy granulation tissue and measured 5×6 mm in area and 2 mm in depth (wound size, 60 mm³), which represented a 99.5% reduction in wound size (Figure 1C). The dressing was not painful, and there were no reported adverse effects. The patient continued to smoke and ambulate fully throughout this period. No antibiotics were used.

Methacrylate polymer powder dressings are a novel and sophisticated dressing modality with great promise for the management of surgical wounds on the lower limb. The dressing is a sterile powder consisting of 84.8% poly-2-hydroxyethylmethacrylate, 14.9% poly-2-hydroxypropylmethacrylate, and 0.3% sodium deoxycholate. These hydrophilic polymers have a covalent methacrylate backbone with a hydroxyl aliphatic side chain. When saline or wound exudate contacts the powder, the spheres hydrate and nonreversibly aggregate to form a moist, flexible dressing that conforms to the topography of the wound and seals it (Figure 2).¹

Once the spheres have aggregated, they are designed to orient in a honeycomb formation with 4- to 10-nm openings that serve as capillary channels (Figure 3). This porous architecture of the polymer is essential for adequate moisture management. It allows for vapor transpiration at a rate of 12 L/m² per day, which ensures the capillary flow from the moist wound surface is evenly distributed through the dressing, contributing to its 68% water content. Notably, this approximately three-fifths water composition is similar to the water makeup of human skin. Optimized moisture management is theorized to enhance epithelial migration, stimulate angiogenesis, retain growth factors, promote autolytic debridement, and maintain ideal voltage and oxygen gradients for wound healing. The risk for infection is not increased by the existence of these pores, as their small size does not allow for bacterial migration.¹

This case demonstrates the effectiveness of using a methacrylate polymer powder dressing to promote timely wound healing in a poorly vascularized lower leg surgical wound. The low maintenance, user-friendly dressing was changed at monthly intervals, which spared the patient the inconvenience and pain associated with the repeated application of more conventional primary and secondary dressings. The dressing was well tolerated and resulted in a 99.5% reduction in wound size. Further studies are needed to investigate the utility of this promising technology.

Granuloma annulare (GA) is a self-limiting condition, and is known as the most common noninfectious granulomatous disease. The prevalence and incidence is approximately 0.1%-0.4%. Although the condition is benign, it may be associated with more serious conditions such as HIV and malignancy. GA affects women more frequently than men but can affect any age group, although it most commonly presents in those ages 30 years and younger. While the exact etiology is unknown, GA has been most strongly associated with diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, and autoimmune diseases.

Courtesy Lucas Shapiro and Dr. Bilu Martin

The disease presents as localized, annular erythematous plaques and papules on the dorsal hands and feet in approximately 75% of cases. However, eruptions may appear on the trunk and extremities and can be categorized into patchy, generalized, interstitial, subcutaneous, or perforating subtypes. The lesions are often asymptomatic and typically not associated with any other symptoms.

Courtesy Lucas Shapiro and Dr. Bilu Martin

The pathogenesis of GA is still under investigation, but recent studies suggest that a Th1-mediated dysregulation of the JAK-STAT pathway may contribute to the disease. Other hypotheses include a delayed hypersensitivity reaction or cell mediated immune response. The mechanism may be multifaceted, and epidemiologic research suggests a genetic predisposition in White individuals, but these findings may be associated with socioeconomic factors and disparities in health care.

GA presents on histology with palisading histiocytes surrounding focal collagen necrobiosis with mucin deposition. Tissue samples also display leukocytic infiltration of the dermis featuring multinucleated giant cells. There are defining features of the different subtypes, but focal collagen necrosis, the presence of histiocytes, and mucin deposition are consistent findings across all presentations.

GA lesions commonly regress on their own, but they tend to recur and can be functionally and visually unappealing to patients. The most common treatments for GA include topical corticosteroids, intralesional corticosteroid injections, and other anti-inflammatory drugs. These interventions can be administered in a variety of ways as the inflammation caused by GA exists on a spectrum, and less severe cases can be managed with topical or intralesional treatment. Systemic therapy may be necessary for severe and recalcitrant cases. Other interventions that have shown promise in smaller studies include phototherapy, hydroxychloroquine, and TNF-alpha inhibitors.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

Joshi TP and Duvic M. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2022 Jan;23(1):37-50. doi: 10.1007/s40257-021-00636-1.

Muse M et al. Dermatol Online J. 2021 Apr 15;27(4):13030/qt0m50398n.

Schmieder SJ et al. Granuloma Annulare. NIH National Center for Biotechnology Information [Updated 2022 Nov 7]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2022 Jan. 7.

Granuloma annulare (GA) is a self-limiting condition, and is known as the most common noninfectious granulomatous disease. The prevalence and incidence is approximately 0.1%-0.4%. Although the condition is benign, it may be associated with more serious conditions such as HIV and malignancy. GA affects women more frequently than men but can affect any age group, although it most commonly presents in those ages 30 years and younger. While the exact etiology is unknown, GA has been most strongly associated with diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, and autoimmune diseases.

Courtesy Lucas Shapiro and Dr. Bilu Martin

The disease presents as localized, annular erythematous plaques and papules on the dorsal hands and feet in approximately 75% of cases. However, eruptions may appear on the trunk and extremities and can be categorized into patchy, generalized, interstitial, subcutaneous, or perforating subtypes. The lesions are often asymptomatic and typically not associated with any other symptoms.

Courtesy Lucas Shapiro and Dr. Bilu Martin

The pathogenesis of GA is still under investigation, but recent studies suggest that a Th1-mediated dysregulation of the JAK-STAT pathway may contribute to the disease. Other hypotheses include a delayed hypersensitivity reaction or cell mediated immune response. The mechanism may be multifaceted, and epidemiologic research suggests a genetic predisposition in White individuals, but these findings may be associated with socioeconomic factors and disparities in health care.

GA presents on histology with palisading histiocytes surrounding focal collagen necrobiosis with mucin deposition. Tissue samples also display leukocytic infiltration of the dermis featuring multinucleated giant cells. There are defining features of the different subtypes, but focal collagen necrosis, the presence of histiocytes, and mucin deposition are consistent findings across all presentations.

GA lesions commonly regress on their own, but they tend to recur and can be functionally and visually unappealing to patients. The most common treatments for GA include topical corticosteroids, intralesional corticosteroid injections, and other anti-inflammatory drugs. These interventions can be administered in a variety of ways as the inflammation caused by GA exists on a spectrum, and less severe cases can be managed with topical or intralesional treatment. Systemic therapy may be necessary for severe and recalcitrant cases. Other interventions that have shown promise in smaller studies include phototherapy, hydroxychloroquine, and TNF-alpha inhibitors.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

Joshi TP and Duvic M. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2022 Jan;23(1):37-50. doi: 10.1007/s40257-021-00636-1.

Muse M et al. Dermatol Online J. 2021 Apr 15;27(4):13030/qt0m50398n.

Schmieder SJ et al. Granuloma Annulare. NIH National Center for Biotechnology Information [Updated 2022 Nov 7]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2022 Jan. 7.

Granuloma annulare (GA) is a self-limiting condition, and is known as the most common noninfectious granulomatous disease. The prevalence and incidence is approximately 0.1%-0.4%. Although the condition is benign, it may be associated with more serious conditions such as HIV and malignancy. GA affects women more frequently than men but can affect any age group, although it most commonly presents in those ages 30 years and younger. While the exact etiology is unknown, GA has been most strongly associated with diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, and autoimmune diseases.

Courtesy Lucas Shapiro and Dr. Bilu Martin

The disease presents as localized, annular erythematous plaques and papules on the dorsal hands and feet in approximately 75% of cases. However, eruptions may appear on the trunk and extremities and can be categorized into patchy, generalized, interstitial, subcutaneous, or perforating subtypes. The lesions are often asymptomatic and typically not associated with any other symptoms.

Courtesy Lucas Shapiro and Dr. Bilu Martin

The pathogenesis of GA is still under investigation, but recent studies suggest that a Th1-mediated dysregulation of the JAK-STAT pathway may contribute to the disease. Other hypotheses include a delayed hypersensitivity reaction or cell mediated immune response. The mechanism may be multifaceted, and epidemiologic research suggests a genetic predisposition in White individuals, but these findings may be associated with socioeconomic factors and disparities in health care.

GA presents on histology with palisading histiocytes surrounding focal collagen necrobiosis with mucin deposition. Tissue samples also display leukocytic infiltration of the dermis featuring multinucleated giant cells. There are defining features of the different subtypes, but focal collagen necrosis, the presence of histiocytes, and mucin deposition are consistent findings across all presentations.

GA lesions commonly regress on their own, but they tend to recur and can be functionally and visually unappealing to patients. The most common treatments for GA include topical corticosteroids, intralesional corticosteroid injections, and other anti-inflammatory drugs. These interventions can be administered in a variety of ways as the inflammation caused by GA exists on a spectrum, and less severe cases can be managed with topical or intralesional treatment. Systemic therapy may be necessary for severe and recalcitrant cases. Other interventions that have shown promise in smaller studies include phototherapy, hydroxychloroquine, and TNF-alpha inhibitors.

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

Joshi TP and Duvic M. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2022 Jan;23(1):37-50. doi: 10.1007/s40257-021-00636-1.

Muse M et al. Dermatol Online J. 2021 Apr 15;27(4):13030/qt0m50398n.

Schmieder SJ et al. Granuloma Annulare. NIH National Center for Biotechnology Information [Updated 2022 Nov 7]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2022 Jan. 7.

Individuals who regularly take vitamin D supplements are significantly less likely to have a history of malignant melanoma or any type of skin cancers than are nonusers, say Finnish investigators. They also found a trend for benefit with occasional use.

The study, published in Melanoma Research, involved almost 500 individuals attending a dermatology clinic who reported on their use of vitamin D supplements.

Zbynek Pospisil/Getty Images

Regular users had a significant 55% reduction in the odds of having a past or present melanoma diagnosis, while occasional use was associated with a nonsignificant 46% reduction. The reduction was similar for all skin cancer types.

However, senior author Ilkka T. Harvima, MD, PhD, department of dermatology, University of Eastern Finland and Kuopio (Finland) University Hospital, warned there are limitations to the study.

Despite adjustment for several possible confounding factors, “it is still possible that some other, yet unidentified or untested, factors can still confound the present result,” he said.

Consequently, “the causal link between vitamin D and melanoma cannot be confirmed by the present results,” Dr. Harvima said in a statement.

Even if the link were to be proven, “the question about the optimal dose of oral vitamin D in order to for it to have beneficial effects remains to be answered,” he said.

“Until we know more, national intake recommendations should be followed.”

The incidence of cutaneous malignant melanoma and other skin cancers has been increasing steadily in Western populations, particularly in immunosuppressed individuals, the authors pointed out, and they attributed the rise to an increased exposure to ultraviolet radiation.

While ultraviolet radiation exposure is a well-known risk factor, “the other side of the coin is that public sun protection campaigns have led to alerts that insufficient sun exposure is a significant public health problem, resulting in insufficient vitamin D status.”

For their study, the team reviewed the records of 498 patients aged 21-79 years at a  dermatology outpatient clinic who were deemed by an experienced dermatologist to be at risk of any type of skin cancer.

Among these patients, 295 individuals had a history of past or present cutaneous malignancy, with 100 diagnosed with melanoma, 213 with basal cell carcinoma, and 41 with squamous cell carcinoma. A further 70 subjects had cancer elsewhere, including breast, prostate, kidney, bladder, intestine, and blood cancers.

A subgroup of 96 patients were immunocompromised and were considered separately.

The 402 remaining patients were categorized, based on their self-reported use of oral vitamin D preparations, as nonusers (n = 99), occasional users (n = 126), and regular users (n = 177).

Regular use of vitamin D was associated with being more educated (P = .032), less frequent outdoor working (P = .003), lower tobacco pack years (P = .001), and more frequent solarium exposure (P = .002).

There was no significant association between vitamin D use and photoaging, actinic keratoses, nevi, basal or squamous cell carcinoma, body mass index, or self-estimated lifetime exposure to sunlight or sunburns.

However, there were significant associations between regular use of vitamin D and a lower incidence of melanoma and other cancer types.

There were significantly fewer individuals in the regular vitamin D use group with a past or present history of melanoma when compared with the nonuse group, at 18.1% vs. 32.3% (P = .021), or any type of skin cancer, at 62.1% vs. 74.7% (P = .027).

Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that regular vitamin D use was significantly associated with a reduced melanoma risk, at an odds ratio vs. nonuse of 0.447 (P = .016).

Occasional use was associated with a reduced, albeit nonsignificant, risk, with an odds ratio versus nonuse of 0.540 (P = .08).

For any type of skin cancers, regular vitamin D use was associated with an odds ratio vs. nonuse of 0.478 (P = .032), while that for occasional vitamin D use was 0.543 (P = .061).

“Somewhat similar” results were obtained when the investigators looked at the subgroup of immunocompromised individuals, although they note that “the number of subjects was low.”

The study was supported by the Cancer Center of Eastern Finland of the University of Eastern Finland, the Finnish Cancer Research Foundation, and the VTR-funding of Kuopio University Hospital. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Individuals who regularly take vitamin D supplements are significantly less likely to have a history of malignant melanoma or any type of skin cancers than are nonusers, say Finnish investigators. They also found a trend for benefit with occasional use.

The study, published in Melanoma Research, involved almost 500 individuals attending a dermatology clinic who reported on their use of vitamin D supplements.

Zbynek Pospisil/Getty Images

Regular users had a significant 55% reduction in the odds of having a past or present melanoma diagnosis, while occasional use was associated with a nonsignificant 46% reduction. The reduction was similar for all skin cancer types.

However, senior author Ilkka T. Harvima, MD, PhD, department of dermatology, University of Eastern Finland and Kuopio (Finland) University Hospital, warned there are limitations to the study.

Despite adjustment for several possible confounding factors, “it is still possible that some other, yet unidentified or untested, factors can still confound the present result,” he said.

Consequently, “the causal link between vitamin D and melanoma cannot be confirmed by the present results,” Dr. Harvima said in a statement.

Even if the link were to be proven, “the question about the optimal dose of oral vitamin D in order to for it to have beneficial effects remains to be answered,” he said.

“Until we know more, national intake recommendations should be followed.”

The incidence of cutaneous malignant melanoma and other skin cancers has been increasing steadily in Western populations, particularly in immunosuppressed individuals, the authors pointed out, and they attributed the rise to an increased exposure to ultraviolet radiation.

While ultraviolet radiation exposure is a well-known risk factor, “the other side of the coin is that public sun protection campaigns have led to alerts that insufficient sun exposure is a significant public health problem, resulting in insufficient vitamin D status.”

For their study, the team reviewed the records of 498 patients aged 21-79 years at a  dermatology outpatient clinic who were deemed by an experienced dermatologist to be at risk of any type of skin cancer.

Among these patients, 295 individuals had a history of past or present cutaneous malignancy, with 100 diagnosed with melanoma, 213 with basal cell carcinoma, and 41 with squamous cell carcinoma. A further 70 subjects had cancer elsewhere, including breast, prostate, kidney, bladder, intestine, and blood cancers.

A subgroup of 96 patients were immunocompromised and were considered separately.

The 402 remaining patients were categorized, based on their self-reported use of oral vitamin D preparations, as nonusers (n = 99), occasional users (n = 126), and regular users (n = 177).

Regular use of vitamin D was associated with being more educated (P = .032), less frequent outdoor working (P = .003), lower tobacco pack years (P = .001), and more frequent solarium exposure (P = .002).

There was no significant association between vitamin D use and photoaging, actinic keratoses, nevi, basal or squamous cell carcinoma, body mass index, or self-estimated lifetime exposure to sunlight or sunburns.

However, there were significant associations between regular use of vitamin D and a lower incidence of melanoma and other cancer types.

There were significantly fewer individuals in the regular vitamin D use group with a past or present history of melanoma when compared with the nonuse group, at 18.1% vs. 32.3% (P = .021), or any type of skin cancer, at 62.1% vs. 74.7% (P = .027).

Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that regular vitamin D use was significantly associated with a reduced melanoma risk, at an odds ratio vs. nonuse of 0.447 (P = .016).

Occasional use was associated with a reduced, albeit nonsignificant, risk, with an odds ratio versus nonuse of 0.540 (P = .08).

For any type of skin cancers, regular vitamin D use was associated with an odds ratio vs. nonuse of 0.478 (P = .032), while that for occasional vitamin D use was 0.543 (P = .061).

“Somewhat similar” results were obtained when the investigators looked at the subgroup of immunocompromised individuals, although they note that “the number of subjects was low.”

The study was supported by the Cancer Center of Eastern Finland of the University of Eastern Finland, the Finnish Cancer Research Foundation, and the VTR-funding of Kuopio University Hospital. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Individuals who regularly take vitamin D supplements are significantly less likely to have a history of malignant melanoma or any type of skin cancers than are nonusers, say Finnish investigators. They also found a trend for benefit with occasional use.

The study, published in Melanoma Research, involved almost 500 individuals attending a dermatology clinic who reported on their use of vitamin D supplements.

Zbynek Pospisil/Getty Images

Regular users had a significant 55% reduction in the odds of having a past or present melanoma diagnosis, while occasional use was associated with a nonsignificant 46% reduction. The reduction was similar for all skin cancer types.

However, senior author Ilkka T. Harvima, MD, PhD, department of dermatology, University of Eastern Finland and Kuopio (Finland) University Hospital, warned there are limitations to the study.

Despite adjustment for several possible confounding factors, “it is still possible that some other, yet unidentified or untested, factors can still confound the present result,” he said.

Consequently, “the causal link between vitamin D and melanoma cannot be confirmed by the present results,” Dr. Harvima said in a statement.

Even if the link were to be proven, “the question about the optimal dose of oral vitamin D in order to for it to have beneficial effects remains to be answered,” he said.

“Until we know more, national intake recommendations should be followed.”

The incidence of cutaneous malignant melanoma and other skin cancers has been increasing steadily in Western populations, particularly in immunosuppressed individuals, the authors pointed out, and they attributed the rise to an increased exposure to ultraviolet radiation.

While ultraviolet radiation exposure is a well-known risk factor, “the other side of the coin is that public sun protection campaigns have led to alerts that insufficient sun exposure is a significant public health problem, resulting in insufficient vitamin D status.”

For their study, the team reviewed the records of 498 patients aged 21-79 years at a  dermatology outpatient clinic who were deemed by an experienced dermatologist to be at risk of any type of skin cancer.

Among these patients, 295 individuals had a history of past or present cutaneous malignancy, with 100 diagnosed with melanoma, 213 with basal cell carcinoma, and 41 with squamous cell carcinoma. A further 70 subjects had cancer elsewhere, including breast, prostate, kidney, bladder, intestine, and blood cancers.

A subgroup of 96 patients were immunocompromised and were considered separately.

The 402 remaining patients were categorized, based on their self-reported use of oral vitamin D preparations, as nonusers (n = 99), occasional users (n = 126), and regular users (n = 177).

Regular use of vitamin D was associated with being more educated (P = .032), less frequent outdoor working (P = .003), lower tobacco pack years (P = .001), and more frequent solarium exposure (P = .002).

There was no significant association between vitamin D use and photoaging, actinic keratoses, nevi, basal or squamous cell carcinoma, body mass index, or self-estimated lifetime exposure to sunlight or sunburns.

However, there were significant associations between regular use of vitamin D and a lower incidence of melanoma and other cancer types.

There were significantly fewer individuals in the regular vitamin D use group with a past or present history of melanoma when compared with the nonuse group, at 18.1% vs. 32.3% (P = .021), or any type of skin cancer, at 62.1% vs. 74.7% (P = .027).

Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that regular vitamin D use was significantly associated with a reduced melanoma risk, at an odds ratio vs. nonuse of 0.447 (P = .016).

Occasional use was associated with a reduced, albeit nonsignificant, risk, with an odds ratio versus nonuse of 0.540 (P = .08).

For any type of skin cancers, regular vitamin D use was associated with an odds ratio vs. nonuse of 0.478 (P = .032), while that for occasional vitamin D use was 0.543 (P = .061).

“Somewhat similar” results were obtained when the investigators looked at the subgroup of immunocompromised individuals, although they note that “the number of subjects was low.”

The study was supported by the Cancer Center of Eastern Finland of the University of Eastern Finland, the Finnish Cancer Research Foundation, and the VTR-funding of Kuopio University Hospital. The authors report no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.