MDedge Dermatology

Reactions to poison ivy, poison oak, and poison sumac, which affect 10 to 50 million Americans a year,¹ are classified as Toxicodendron dermatitis; 50% to 75% of US adults are clinically sensitive to these plants.² Furthermore, people of all ethnicities, skin types, and ages residing in most US geographical regions are at risk.³ Allergenicity is caused by urushiol, which is found in members of the Anacardiaceae family.⁴ Once absorbed, urushiol causes a type IV hypersensitivity reaction in those who are susceptible.⁵

Cutaneous Manifestations

Toxicodendron dermatitis presents with an acute eczematous eruption characterized by streaks of intensely pruritic and erythematous papules and vesicles (Figure 1). Areas of involvement are characterized by sharp margins that follow the pattern of contact made by the plant’s leaves, berries, stems, and vines.⁶ The fluid content of the vesicles is not antigenic and cannot cause subsequent transmission to oneself or others.³ A person with prior contact to the plant who becomes sensitized develops an eruption 24 to 48 hours after subsequent contact with the plant; peak severity manifests 1 to 14 days later.⁷

When left untreated, the eruption can last 3 weeks. If the plant is burned, urushiol can be aerosolized in smoke, causing respiratory tract inflammation and generalized dermatitis, which has been reported among wildland firefighters.² Long-term complications from an outbreak are limited but can include postinflammatory hyperpigmentation and secondary bacterial infection.⁸ Rare reports of nephrotic syndrome also have appeared in the literature.⁹Toxicodendron dermatitis can present distinctively as so-called black dot dermatitis.⁶

Nomenclature

Poison ivy, poison oak, and poison sumac are members of the family Anacardiaceae and genus Toxicodendron,⁶ derived from the Greek words toxikos (poison) and dendron (tree).¹⁰

Distribution

Toxicodendron plants characteristically are found in various regions of the United States. Poison ivy is the most common and is comprised of 2 species: Toxicodendron rydbergii and Toxicodendron radicans. Toxicodendron rydbergii is a nonclimbing dwarf shrub typically found in the northern and western United States. Toxicodendron radicans is a climbing vine found in the eastern United States. Poison oak also is comprised of 2 species—Toxicodendron toxicarium and Toxicodendron diversilobum—and is more common in the western United States. Poison sumac (also known as Toxicodendron vernix) is a small shrub that grows in moist swampy areas. It has a predilection for marshes of the eastern and southeastern United States.^6,11

Identifying Features

Educating patients on how to identify poison ivy can play a key role in avoidance, which is the most important step in preventing Toxicodendron dermatitis. A challenge in identification of poison ivy is the plant’s variable appearance; it grows as a small shrub, low-lying vine, or vine that climbs other trees.

As the vine matures, it develops tiny, rough, “hairy” rootlets—hence the saying, “Hairy vine, no friend of mine!” Rootlets help the plant attach to trees growing near a water source. Vines can reach a diameter of 3 inches. From mature vines, solitary stems extend 1 to 2 inches with 3 characteristic leaves at the terminus (Figure 2), prompting another classic saying, “Leaves of 3, let it be!”¹²

Poison oak is characterized by 3 to 5 leaflets. Poison sumac has 7 to 13 pointed, smooth-edged leaves.⁶

Dermatitis-Inducing Plant Parts

The primary allergenic component of Toxicodendron plants is urushiol, a resinous sap found in stems, roots, leaves, and skins of the fruits. These components must be damaged or bruised to release the allergen; slight contact with an uninjured plant part might not lead to harm.^2,13 Some common forms of transmission include skin contact, ingestion, inhalation of smoke from burning plants, and contact with skin through contaminated items, such as clothing, animals, and tools.¹⁴

Allergens

The catecholic ring and aliphatic chain of the urushiol molecule are allergenic.¹⁵ The degree of saturation and length of the side chains vary with different catechols. Urushiol displays cross-reactivity with poison ivy, poison oak, and poison sumac. Urushiol from these plants differs only slightly in structure; therefore, sensitization to one causes sensitization to all. There also is cross-reactivity between different members of the Anacardiaceae family, including Anacardium occidentale (tropical cashew nut), Mangifera indica (tropical mango tree), Ginkgo biloba (ginkgo tree), and Semecarpus anacardium (Indian marking nut tree).¹²

Poison ivy, poison oak, and poison sumac cause allergic contact dermatitis as a type IV hypersensitivity reaction. First, urushiol binds and penetrates the skin, where it is oxidized to quinone intermediates and bound to haptens. Then, the intermediates bind surface proteins on antigen-presenting cells, specifically Langerhans cells in the epidermis and dermis.⁵

Presentation of nonpeptide antigens, such as urushiol, to T cells requires expression of langerin (also known as CD207) and CD1a.¹⁶ Langerin is a C-type lectin that causes formation of Birbeck granules; CD1a is a major histocompatibility complex class I molecule found in Birbeck granules.^5,17 After Langerhans cells internalize and process the urushiol self-hapten neoantigen, it is presented to CD4⁺ T cells.⁶ These cells then expand to form circulating activated T-effector and T-memory lymphocytes.¹⁸

The molecular link that occurs between the hapten and carrier protein determines the response. When linked by an amino nucleophile, selective induction of T-effector cells ensues, resulting in allergic contact dermatitis. When linked by a sulfhydryl bond, selective induction of suppressor cells occurs, resulting in a reduced allergic contact dermatitis response.¹⁹ In the case of activation of T-effector cells, a cell-mediated cytotoxic immune response is generated that destroys epidermal cells and dermal vasculature.² The incidence and intensity of poison ivy sensitivity decline proportionally with age and the absence of continued exposure.²⁰

Preventive Action—Patients should be counseled that if contact between plant and skin occurs, it is important to remove contaminated clothing or objects and wash them with soap to prevent additional exposure.^14,21 Areas of the skin that made contact with the plant should be washed with water as soon as possible; after 30 minutes, urushiol has sufficiently penetrated to cause a reaction.² Forceful unidirectional washing with a damp washcloth and liquid dishwashing soap is recommended.²²

Several barrier creams are commercially available to help prevent absorption or to deactivate the urushiol antigen. These products are used widely by forestry workers and wildland firefighters.²³ One such barrier cream is bentoquatam (sold as various trade names), an organoclay compound made of quaternium-18 bentonite that interferes with absorption of the allergen by acting as a physical blocker.²⁴

Treatment

After Toxicodendron dermatitis develops, several treatments are available to help manage symptoms. Calamine lotion can be used to help dry weeping lesions.^25,26 Topical steroids can be used to help control pruritus and alleviate inflammation. High-potency topical corticosteroids such as clobetasol and mid-potency steroids such as triamcinolone can be used. Topical anesthetics (eg, benzocaine, pramoxine, benzyl alcohol) might provide symptomatic relief.^27,28

Oral antihistamines can allow for better sleep by providing sedation but do not target the pruritus of poison ivy dermatitis, which is not histamine mediated.^29,30 Systemic corticosteroids usually are considered in more severe dermatitis—when 20% or more of the body surface area is involved; blistering and itching are severe; or the face, hands, or genitalia are involved.^31,32

Clinical Uses

Therapeutic uses for poison ivy have been explored extensively. In 1892, Dakin³³ reported that ingestion of leaves by Native Americans reduced the incidence and severity of skin lesions after contact with poison ivy. Consumption of poison ivy was further studied by Epstein and colleagues³⁴ in 1974; they concluded that ingestion of a large amount of urushiol over a period of 3 months or longer may help with hyposensitization—but not complete desensitization—to contact with poison ivy. However, the risk for adverse effects is thought to outweigh benefits because ingestion can cause perianal dermatitis, mucocutaneous sequelae, and systemic contact dermatitis.²

Although the use of Toxicodendron plants in modern-day medicine is limited, development of a vaccine (immunotherapy) against Toxicodendron dermatitis offers an exciting opportunity for further research.

Reactions to poison ivy, poison oak, and poison sumac, which affect 10 to 50 million Americans a year,¹ are classified as Toxicodendron dermatitis; 50% to 75% of US adults are clinically sensitive to these plants.² Furthermore, people of all ethnicities, skin types, and ages residing in most US geographical regions are at risk.³ Allergenicity is caused by urushiol, which is found in members of the Anacardiaceae family.⁴ Once absorbed, urushiol causes a type IV hypersensitivity reaction in those who are susceptible.⁵

Cutaneous Manifestations

Toxicodendron dermatitis presents with an acute eczematous eruption characterized by streaks of intensely pruritic and erythematous papules and vesicles (Figure 1). Areas of involvement are characterized by sharp margins that follow the pattern of contact made by the plant’s leaves, berries, stems, and vines.⁶ The fluid content of the vesicles is not antigenic and cannot cause subsequent transmission to oneself or others.³ A person with prior contact to the plant who becomes sensitized develops an eruption 24 to 48 hours after subsequent contact with the plant; peak severity manifests 1 to 14 days later.⁷

When left untreated, the eruption can last 3 weeks. If the plant is burned, urushiol can be aerosolized in smoke, causing respiratory tract inflammation and generalized dermatitis, which has been reported among wildland firefighters.² Long-term complications from an outbreak are limited but can include postinflammatory hyperpigmentation and secondary bacterial infection.⁸ Rare reports of nephrotic syndrome also have appeared in the literature.⁹Toxicodendron dermatitis can present distinctively as so-called black dot dermatitis.⁶

Nomenclature

Poison ivy, poison oak, and poison sumac are members of the family Anacardiaceae and genus Toxicodendron,⁶ derived from the Greek words toxikos (poison) and dendron (tree).¹⁰

Distribution

Toxicodendron plants characteristically are found in various regions of the United States. Poison ivy is the most common and is comprised of 2 species: Toxicodendron rydbergii and Toxicodendron radicans. Toxicodendron rydbergii is a nonclimbing dwarf shrub typically found in the northern and western United States. Toxicodendron radicans is a climbing vine found in the eastern United States. Poison oak also is comprised of 2 species—Toxicodendron toxicarium and Toxicodendron diversilobum—and is more common in the western United States. Poison sumac (also known as Toxicodendron vernix) is a small shrub that grows in moist swampy areas. It has a predilection for marshes of the eastern and southeastern United States.^6,11

Identifying Features

Educating patients on how to identify poison ivy can play a key role in avoidance, which is the most important step in preventing Toxicodendron dermatitis. A challenge in identification of poison ivy is the plant’s variable appearance; it grows as a small shrub, low-lying vine, or vine that climbs other trees.

As the vine matures, it develops tiny, rough, “hairy” rootlets—hence the saying, “Hairy vine, no friend of mine!” Rootlets help the plant attach to trees growing near a water source. Vines can reach a diameter of 3 inches. From mature vines, solitary stems extend 1 to 2 inches with 3 characteristic leaves at the terminus (Figure 2), prompting another classic saying, “Leaves of 3, let it be!”¹²

Poison oak is characterized by 3 to 5 leaflets. Poison sumac has 7 to 13 pointed, smooth-edged leaves.⁶

Dermatitis-Inducing Plant Parts

The primary allergenic component of Toxicodendron plants is urushiol, a resinous sap found in stems, roots, leaves, and skins of the fruits. These components must be damaged or bruised to release the allergen; slight contact with an uninjured plant part might not lead to harm.^2,13 Some common forms of transmission include skin contact, ingestion, inhalation of smoke from burning plants, and contact with skin through contaminated items, such as clothing, animals, and tools.¹⁴

Allergens

The catecholic ring and aliphatic chain of the urushiol molecule are allergenic.¹⁵ The degree of saturation and length of the side chains vary with different catechols. Urushiol displays cross-reactivity with poison ivy, poison oak, and poison sumac. Urushiol from these plants differs only slightly in structure; therefore, sensitization to one causes sensitization to all. There also is cross-reactivity between different members of the Anacardiaceae family, including Anacardium occidentale (tropical cashew nut), Mangifera indica (tropical mango tree), Ginkgo biloba (ginkgo tree), and Semecarpus anacardium (Indian marking nut tree).¹²

Poison ivy, poison oak, and poison sumac cause allergic contact dermatitis as a type IV hypersensitivity reaction. First, urushiol binds and penetrates the skin, where it is oxidized to quinone intermediates and bound to haptens. Then, the intermediates bind surface proteins on antigen-presenting cells, specifically Langerhans cells in the epidermis and dermis.⁵

Presentation of nonpeptide antigens, such as urushiol, to T cells requires expression of langerin (also known as CD207) and CD1a.¹⁶ Langerin is a C-type lectin that causes formation of Birbeck granules; CD1a is a major histocompatibility complex class I molecule found in Birbeck granules.^5,17 After Langerhans cells internalize and process the urushiol self-hapten neoantigen, it is presented to CD4⁺ T cells.⁶ These cells then expand to form circulating activated T-effector and T-memory lymphocytes.¹⁸

The molecular link that occurs between the hapten and carrier protein determines the response. When linked by an amino nucleophile, selective induction of T-effector cells ensues, resulting in allergic contact dermatitis. When linked by a sulfhydryl bond, selective induction of suppressor cells occurs, resulting in a reduced allergic contact dermatitis response.¹⁹ In the case of activation of T-effector cells, a cell-mediated cytotoxic immune response is generated that destroys epidermal cells and dermal vasculature.² The incidence and intensity of poison ivy sensitivity decline proportionally with age and the absence of continued exposure.²⁰

Preventive Action—Patients should be counseled that if contact between plant and skin occurs, it is important to remove contaminated clothing or objects and wash them with soap to prevent additional exposure.^14,21 Areas of the skin that made contact with the plant should be washed with water as soon as possible; after 30 minutes, urushiol has sufficiently penetrated to cause a reaction.² Forceful unidirectional washing with a damp washcloth and liquid dishwashing soap is recommended.²²

Several barrier creams are commercially available to help prevent absorption or to deactivate the urushiol antigen. These products are used widely by forestry workers and wildland firefighters.²³ One such barrier cream is bentoquatam (sold as various trade names), an organoclay compound made of quaternium-18 bentonite that interferes with absorption of the allergen by acting as a physical blocker.²⁴

Treatment

After Toxicodendron dermatitis develops, several treatments are available to help manage symptoms. Calamine lotion can be used to help dry weeping lesions.^25,26 Topical steroids can be used to help control pruritus and alleviate inflammation. High-potency topical corticosteroids such as clobetasol and mid-potency steroids such as triamcinolone can be used. Topical anesthetics (eg, benzocaine, pramoxine, benzyl alcohol) might provide symptomatic relief.^27,28

Oral antihistamines can allow for better sleep by providing sedation but do not target the pruritus of poison ivy dermatitis, which is not histamine mediated.^29,30 Systemic corticosteroids usually are considered in more severe dermatitis—when 20% or more of the body surface area is involved; blistering and itching are severe; or the face, hands, or genitalia are involved.^31,32

Clinical Uses

Therapeutic uses for poison ivy have been explored extensively. In 1892, Dakin³³ reported that ingestion of leaves by Native Americans reduced the incidence and severity of skin lesions after contact with poison ivy. Consumption of poison ivy was further studied by Epstein and colleagues³⁴ in 1974; they concluded that ingestion of a large amount of urushiol over a period of 3 months or longer may help with hyposensitization—but not complete desensitization—to contact with poison ivy. However, the risk for adverse effects is thought to outweigh benefits because ingestion can cause perianal dermatitis, mucocutaneous sequelae, and systemic contact dermatitis.²

Although the use of Toxicodendron plants in modern-day medicine is limited, development of a vaccine (immunotherapy) against Toxicodendron dermatitis offers an exciting opportunity for further research.

Reactions to poison ivy, poison oak, and poison sumac, which affect 10 to 50 million Americans a year,¹ are classified as Toxicodendron dermatitis; 50% to 75% of US adults are clinically sensitive to these plants.² Furthermore, people of all ethnicities, skin types, and ages residing in most US geographical regions are at risk.³ Allergenicity is caused by urushiol, which is found in members of the Anacardiaceae family.⁴ Once absorbed, urushiol causes a type IV hypersensitivity reaction in those who are susceptible.⁵

Cutaneous Manifestations

Toxicodendron dermatitis presents with an acute eczematous eruption characterized by streaks of intensely pruritic and erythematous papules and vesicles (Figure 1). Areas of involvement are characterized by sharp margins that follow the pattern of contact made by the plant’s leaves, berries, stems, and vines.⁶ The fluid content of the vesicles is not antigenic and cannot cause subsequent transmission to oneself or others.³ A person with prior contact to the plant who becomes sensitized develops an eruption 24 to 48 hours after subsequent contact with the plant; peak severity manifests 1 to 14 days later.⁷

When left untreated, the eruption can last 3 weeks. If the plant is burned, urushiol can be aerosolized in smoke, causing respiratory tract inflammation and generalized dermatitis, which has been reported among wildland firefighters.² Long-term complications from an outbreak are limited but can include postinflammatory hyperpigmentation and secondary bacterial infection.⁸ Rare reports of nephrotic syndrome also have appeared in the literature.⁹Toxicodendron dermatitis can present distinctively as so-called black dot dermatitis.⁶

Nomenclature

Poison ivy, poison oak, and poison sumac are members of the family Anacardiaceae and genus Toxicodendron,⁶ derived from the Greek words toxikos (poison) and dendron (tree).¹⁰

Distribution

Toxicodendron plants characteristically are found in various regions of the United States. Poison ivy is the most common and is comprised of 2 species: Toxicodendron rydbergii and Toxicodendron radicans. Toxicodendron rydbergii is a nonclimbing dwarf shrub typically found in the northern and western United States. Toxicodendron radicans is a climbing vine found in the eastern United States. Poison oak also is comprised of 2 species—Toxicodendron toxicarium and Toxicodendron diversilobum—and is more common in the western United States. Poison sumac (also known as Toxicodendron vernix) is a small shrub that grows in moist swampy areas. It has a predilection for marshes of the eastern and southeastern United States.^6,11

Identifying Features

Educating patients on how to identify poison ivy can play a key role in avoidance, which is the most important step in preventing Toxicodendron dermatitis. A challenge in identification of poison ivy is the plant’s variable appearance; it grows as a small shrub, low-lying vine, or vine that climbs other trees.

As the vine matures, it develops tiny, rough, “hairy” rootlets—hence the saying, “Hairy vine, no friend of mine!” Rootlets help the plant attach to trees growing near a water source. Vines can reach a diameter of 3 inches. From mature vines, solitary stems extend 1 to 2 inches with 3 characteristic leaves at the terminus (Figure 2), prompting another classic saying, “Leaves of 3, let it be!”¹²

Poison oak is characterized by 3 to 5 leaflets. Poison sumac has 7 to 13 pointed, smooth-edged leaves.⁶

Dermatitis-Inducing Plant Parts

The primary allergenic component of Toxicodendron plants is urushiol, a resinous sap found in stems, roots, leaves, and skins of the fruits. These components must be damaged or bruised to release the allergen; slight contact with an uninjured plant part might not lead to harm.^2,13 Some common forms of transmission include skin contact, ingestion, inhalation of smoke from burning plants, and contact with skin through contaminated items, such as clothing, animals, and tools.¹⁴

Allergens

The catecholic ring and aliphatic chain of the urushiol molecule are allergenic.¹⁵ The degree of saturation and length of the side chains vary with different catechols. Urushiol displays cross-reactivity with poison ivy, poison oak, and poison sumac. Urushiol from these plants differs only slightly in structure; therefore, sensitization to one causes sensitization to all. There also is cross-reactivity between different members of the Anacardiaceae family, including Anacardium occidentale (tropical cashew nut), Mangifera indica (tropical mango tree), Ginkgo biloba (ginkgo tree), and Semecarpus anacardium (Indian marking nut tree).¹²

Poison ivy, poison oak, and poison sumac cause allergic contact dermatitis as a type IV hypersensitivity reaction. First, urushiol binds and penetrates the skin, where it is oxidized to quinone intermediates and bound to haptens. Then, the intermediates bind surface proteins on antigen-presenting cells, specifically Langerhans cells in the epidermis and dermis.⁵

Presentation of nonpeptide antigens, such as urushiol, to T cells requires expression of langerin (also known as CD207) and CD1a.¹⁶ Langerin is a C-type lectin that causes formation of Birbeck granules; CD1a is a major histocompatibility complex class I molecule found in Birbeck granules.^5,17 After Langerhans cells internalize and process the urushiol self-hapten neoantigen, it is presented to CD4⁺ T cells.⁶ These cells then expand to form circulating activated T-effector and T-memory lymphocytes.¹⁸

The molecular link that occurs between the hapten and carrier protein determines the response. When linked by an amino nucleophile, selective induction of T-effector cells ensues, resulting in allergic contact dermatitis. When linked by a sulfhydryl bond, selective induction of suppressor cells occurs, resulting in a reduced allergic contact dermatitis response.¹⁹ In the case of activation of T-effector cells, a cell-mediated cytotoxic immune response is generated that destroys epidermal cells and dermal vasculature.² The incidence and intensity of poison ivy sensitivity decline proportionally with age and the absence of continued exposure.²⁰

Preventive Action—Patients should be counseled that if contact between plant and skin occurs, it is important to remove contaminated clothing or objects and wash them with soap to prevent additional exposure.^14,21 Areas of the skin that made contact with the plant should be washed with water as soon as possible; after 30 minutes, urushiol has sufficiently penetrated to cause a reaction.² Forceful unidirectional washing with a damp washcloth and liquid dishwashing soap is recommended.²²

Several barrier creams are commercially available to help prevent absorption or to deactivate the urushiol antigen. These products are used widely by forestry workers and wildland firefighters.²³ One such barrier cream is bentoquatam (sold as various trade names), an organoclay compound made of quaternium-18 bentonite that interferes with absorption of the allergen by acting as a physical blocker.²⁴

Treatment

After Toxicodendron dermatitis develops, several treatments are available to help manage symptoms. Calamine lotion can be used to help dry weeping lesions.^25,26 Topical steroids can be used to help control pruritus and alleviate inflammation. High-potency topical corticosteroids such as clobetasol and mid-potency steroids such as triamcinolone can be used. Topical anesthetics (eg, benzocaine, pramoxine, benzyl alcohol) might provide symptomatic relief.^27,28

Oral antihistamines can allow for better sleep by providing sedation but do not target the pruritus of poison ivy dermatitis, which is not histamine mediated.^29,30 Systemic corticosteroids usually are considered in more severe dermatitis—when 20% or more of the body surface area is involved; blistering and itching are severe; or the face, hands, or genitalia are involved.^31,32

Clinical Uses

Therapeutic uses for poison ivy have been explored extensively. In 1892, Dakin³³ reported that ingestion of leaves by Native Americans reduced the incidence and severity of skin lesions after contact with poison ivy. Consumption of poison ivy was further studied by Epstein and colleagues³⁴ in 1974; they concluded that ingestion of a large amount of urushiol over a period of 3 months or longer may help with hyposensitization—but not complete desensitization—to contact with poison ivy. However, the risk for adverse effects is thought to outweigh benefits because ingestion can cause perianal dermatitis, mucocutaneous sequelae, and systemic contact dermatitis.²

Although the use of Toxicodendron plants in modern-day medicine is limited, development of a vaccine (immunotherapy) against Toxicodendron dermatitis offers an exciting opportunity for further research.

It is unsurprising that food frequently is thought to be the culprit behind an eczema flare, especially in infants. Indeed, it often is said that infants do only 3 things: eat, sleep, and poop.¹ For those unfortunate enough to develop the signs and symptoms of atopic dermatitis (AD), food quickly emerges as a potential culprit from the tiny pool of suspects, which is against a cultural backdrop of unprecedented focus on foods and food reactions.² The prevalence of food allergies in children, though admittedly fraught with methodological difficulties, is estimated to have more than doubled from 3.4% in 1999 to 7.6% in 2018.³ As expected, prevalence rates were higher among children with other atopic comorbidities including AD, with up to 50% of children with AD demonstrating convincing food allergy.⁴ It is easy to imagine a patient conflating these 2 entities and mistaking their correlation for causation. Thus, it follows that more than 90% of parents/guardians have reported that their children have had food-induced AD, and understandably—at least according to one study—75% of parents/guardians were found to have manipulated the diet in an attempt to manage the disease.^5,6

Patients and parents/guardians are not the only ones who have suspected food as a driving force in AD. An article in the British Medical Journal from the 1800s beautifully encapsulated the depth and duration of this quandary: “There is probably no subject in which more deeply rooted convictions have been held, not only in the profession but by the laity, than the connection between diet and disease, both as regards the causation and treatment of the latter.”⁷ Herein, a wide range of food reactions is examined to highlight evidence for the role of diet in AD, which may contradict what patients—and even some clinicians—believe.

No Easy Answers

A definitive statement that food allergy is not the root cause of AD would put this issue to rest, but such simplicity does not reflect the complex reality. First, we must agree on definitions for certain terms. What do we mean by food allergy? A broader category—adverse food reactions—covers a wide range of entities, some immune mediated and some not, including lactose intolerance, irritant contact dermatitis around the mouth, and even dermatitis herpetiformis (the cutaneous manifestation of celiac disease).⁸ Although the term food allergy often is used synonymously with adverse food reactions, the exact definition of a food allergy is specific: “adverse immune responses to food proteins that result in typical clinical symptoms.”⁸ The fact that many patients and even health care practitioners seem to frequently misapply this term makes it even more confusing. 

The current focus is on foods that could trigger a flare of AD, which clearly is a broader question than food allergy sensu stricto. It seems self-evident, for example, that if an infant with AD were to (messily) eat an acidic food such as an orange, a flare-up of AD around the mouth and on the cheeks and hands would be a forgone conclusion. Similar nonimmunologic scenarios unambiguously can occur with many foods, including citrus; corn; radish; mustard; garlic; onion; pineapple; and many spices, food additives, and preservatives.⁹ Clearly there are some scenarios whereby food could trigger an AD flare, and yet this more limited vignette generally is not what patients are referring to when suggesting that food is the root cause of their AD.

The Labyrinth of Testing for Food Allergies

Although there is no reliable method for testing for irritant dermatitis, understanding the other types of tests may help guide our thinking. Testing for IgE-mediated food allergies generally is done via an immunoenzymatic serum assay that can document sensitization to a food protein; however, this testing by itself is not sufficient to diagnose a clinical food allergy.¹⁰ Similarly, skin prick testing allows for intradermal administration of a food extract to evaluate for an urticarial reaction within 10 to 15 minutes. Although the sensitivity and specificity vary by age, population, and the specific allergen being tested, these are limited to immediate-type reactions and do not reflect the potential to drive an eczematous flare.

The gold standard, if there is one, is likely the double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC), ideally with a long enough observation period to capture later-occurring reactions such as an AD flare. However, given the nature of the test—having patients eat the foods of concern and then carefully following them for reactions—it remains time consuming, expensive, and labor intensive.¹¹ 

To further complicate matters, several unvalidated tests exist such as IgG testing, atopy patch testing, kinesiology, and hair and gastric juice analysis, which remain investigational but continue to be used and may further confuse patients and clinicians.¹²

It is useful to first separate out the classic IgE-mediated food allergy reactions that are common. In these immediate-type reactions, a person sensitized to a food protein will develop characteristic cutaneous and/or extracutaneous reactions such as urticaria, angioedema, and even anaphylaxis, usually within minutes of exposure. Although it is possible that an IgE-mediated reaction could trigger an AD flare—perhaps simply by causing pruritus, which could initiate the itch-scratch cycle—because of the near simultaneity with ingestion of the offending food and the often dramatic clinical presentations, such foods clearly do not represent “hidden” triggers for AD flares.³ The concept of food-triggered AD (FTAD) is crucial for thinking about foods that could result in true eczematous flares, which historically have been classified as early-type (<2 hours after food challenge) and late-type (≥2 hours after food challenge) reactions.^13,14 

A study of more than 1000 DBPCFCs performed in patients with AD was illustrative.¹⁵ Immediate reactions other than AD were fairly common and were observed in 40% of the food challenges compared to only 9% in the placebo group. These reactions included urticaria, angioedema, and gastrointestinal and respiratory tract symptoms. Immediate reactions of AD alone were exceedingly rare at only 0.7% and not significantly elevated compared to placebo. Just over 4% experienced both an immediate AD exacerbation along with other non-AD findings, which was significantly greater than placebo (P<.01). Although intermediate and late reactions manifesting as AD exacerbations did occur after food ingestion, they were rare (2.2% or less) and not significantly different from placebo. The authors concluded that an exacerbation of AD in the absence of other allergic symptoms in children was unlikely to be due to food,¹⁵ which is an important finding.

A recent retrospective review of 372 children with AD reported similar results.⁴ The authors defined FTAD in a different way; instead of showing a flare after a DBPCFC, they looked for “physician-noted sustained improvement in AD upon removal of a food (typically after 2–6-wk follow-up), to which the child was sensitized without any other changes in skin care.” Despite this fundamentally different approach, they similarly concluded that while food allergies were common, FTAD was relatively uncommon—found in 2% of those with mild AD, 6% of those with moderate AD, and 4% of those with severe AD.⁴ 

There are other ways that foods could contribute to disease flares, however, and one of the most compelling is that there may be broader concepts at play; perhaps some diets are not specifically driving the AD but rather are affecting inflammation in the body at large. Although somewhat speculative, there is evidence that some foods may simply be proinflammatory, working to exacerbate the disease outside of a specific mechanism, which has been seen in a variety of other conditions such as acne or rheumatoid arthritis.^16,17 To speculate further, it is possible that there may be a threshold effect such that when the AD is poorly controlled, certain factors such as inflammatory foods could lead to a flare, while when under better control, these same factors may not cause an effect.

Finally, it is important to also consider the emotional and/or psychological aspects related to food and diet. The power of the placebo in dietary change has been documented in several diseases, though this certainly is not to be dismissive of the patient’s symptoms; it seems reasonable that the very act of changing such a fundamental aspect of daily life could result in a placebo effect.^18,19 In the context of relapsing and remitting conditions such as AD, this effect may be magnified. A landmark study by Thompson and Hanifin²⁰ illustrates this possibility. The authors found that in 80% of cases in which patients were convinced that food was a major contributing factor to their AD, such concerns diminished markedly once better control of the eczema was achieved.²⁰

This brings us to what to do with an individual patient in the examination room. Because there is such widespread concern and discussion around this topic, it is important to at least briefly address it. If there are known food allergens that are being avoided, it is important to underscore the importance of continuing to avoid those foods, especially when there is actual evidence of true food allergy rather than sensitization alone. Historically, elimination diets often were recommended empirically, though more recent studies, meta-analyses, and guidance documents increasingly have recommended against them.³ In particular, there are major concerns for iatrogenic harm. 

First, heavily restricted diets may result in nutritional and/or caloric deficiencies that can be dangerous and lead to poor growth.²¹ Practices such as drinking unpasteurized milk can expose children to dangerous infections, while feeding them exclusively rice milk can lead to severe malnutrition.²² 

Second, there is a dawning realization that children with AD placed on elimination diets may actually develop true IgE-mediated allergies, including fatal anaphylaxis, to the excluded foods. In fact, one retrospective review of 298 patients with a history of AD and no prior immediate reactions found that 19% of patients developed new immediate-type hypersensitivity reactions after starting an elimination diet, presumably due to the loss of tolerance to these foods. A striking one-third of these reactions were classified as anaphylaxis, with cow’s milk and egg being the most common offenders.²³

It also is crucial to acknowledge that recommending sweeping lifestyle changes is not easy for patients, especially pediatric patients. Onerous dietary restrictions may add considerable stress, ironically a known trigger for AD itself. 

Finally, dietary modifications can be a distraction from conventional therapy and may result in treatment delays while the patient continues to experience uncontrolled symptoms of AD. 

Final Thoughts

Diet is intimately related to AD. Although the narrative continues to unfold in fascinating domains, such as the skin barrier and the microbiome, it is increasingly clear that these are intertwined and always have been. Despite the rarity of true food-triggered AD, the perception of dietary triggers is so widespread and addressing the topic is important and may help avoid unnecessary harm from unfounded extreme dietary changes. A recent multispecialty workgroup report on AD and food allergy succinctly summarized this as: “AD has many triggers and comorbidities, and food allergy is only one of the potential triggers and comorbid conditions. With regard to AD management, education and skin care are most important.”³ With proper testing, guidance, and both topical and systemic therapies, most AD can be brought under control, and for at least some patients, this may allay concerns about foods triggering their AD. 

It is unsurprising that food frequently is thought to be the culprit behind an eczema flare, especially in infants. Indeed, it often is said that infants do only 3 things: eat, sleep, and poop.¹ For those unfortunate enough to develop the signs and symptoms of atopic dermatitis (AD), food quickly emerges as a potential culprit from the tiny pool of suspects, which is against a cultural backdrop of unprecedented focus on foods and food reactions.² The prevalence of food allergies in children, though admittedly fraught with methodological difficulties, is estimated to have more than doubled from 3.4% in 1999 to 7.6% in 2018.³ As expected, prevalence rates were higher among children with other atopic comorbidities including AD, with up to 50% of children with AD demonstrating convincing food allergy.⁴ It is easy to imagine a patient conflating these 2 entities and mistaking their correlation for causation. Thus, it follows that more than 90% of parents/guardians have reported that their children have had food-induced AD, and understandably—at least according to one study—75% of parents/guardians were found to have manipulated the diet in an attempt to manage the disease.^5,6

Patients and parents/guardians are not the only ones who have suspected food as a driving force in AD. An article in the British Medical Journal from the 1800s beautifully encapsulated the depth and duration of this quandary: “There is probably no subject in which more deeply rooted convictions have been held, not only in the profession but by the laity, than the connection between diet and disease, both as regards the causation and treatment of the latter.”⁷ Herein, a wide range of food reactions is examined to highlight evidence for the role of diet in AD, which may contradict what patients—and even some clinicians—believe.

No Easy Answers

A definitive statement that food allergy is not the root cause of AD would put this issue to rest, but such simplicity does not reflect the complex reality. First, we must agree on definitions for certain terms. What do we mean by food allergy? A broader category—adverse food reactions—covers a wide range of entities, some immune mediated and some not, including lactose intolerance, irritant contact dermatitis around the mouth, and even dermatitis herpetiformis (the cutaneous manifestation of celiac disease).⁸ Although the term food allergy often is used synonymously with adverse food reactions, the exact definition of a food allergy is specific: “adverse immune responses to food proteins that result in typical clinical symptoms.”⁸ The fact that many patients and even health care practitioners seem to frequently misapply this term makes it even more confusing. 

The current focus is on foods that could trigger a flare of AD, which clearly is a broader question than food allergy sensu stricto. It seems self-evident, for example, that if an infant with AD were to (messily) eat an acidic food such as an orange, a flare-up of AD around the mouth and on the cheeks and hands would be a forgone conclusion. Similar nonimmunologic scenarios unambiguously can occur with many foods, including citrus; corn; radish; mustard; garlic; onion; pineapple; and many spices, food additives, and preservatives.⁹ Clearly there are some scenarios whereby food could trigger an AD flare, and yet this more limited vignette generally is not what patients are referring to when suggesting that food is the root cause of their AD.

The Labyrinth of Testing for Food Allergies

Although there is no reliable method for testing for irritant dermatitis, understanding the other types of tests may help guide our thinking. Testing for IgE-mediated food allergies generally is done via an immunoenzymatic serum assay that can document sensitization to a food protein; however, this testing by itself is not sufficient to diagnose a clinical food allergy.¹⁰ Similarly, skin prick testing allows for intradermal administration of a food extract to evaluate for an urticarial reaction within 10 to 15 minutes. Although the sensitivity and specificity vary by age, population, and the specific allergen being tested, these are limited to immediate-type reactions and do not reflect the potential to drive an eczematous flare.

The gold standard, if there is one, is likely the double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC), ideally with a long enough observation period to capture later-occurring reactions such as an AD flare. However, given the nature of the test—having patients eat the foods of concern and then carefully following them for reactions—it remains time consuming, expensive, and labor intensive.¹¹ 

To further complicate matters, several unvalidated tests exist such as IgG testing, atopy patch testing, kinesiology, and hair and gastric juice analysis, which remain investigational but continue to be used and may further confuse patients and clinicians.¹²

It is useful to first separate out the classic IgE-mediated food allergy reactions that are common. In these immediate-type reactions, a person sensitized to a food protein will develop characteristic cutaneous and/or extracutaneous reactions such as urticaria, angioedema, and even anaphylaxis, usually within minutes of exposure. Although it is possible that an IgE-mediated reaction could trigger an AD flare—perhaps simply by causing pruritus, which could initiate the itch-scratch cycle—because of the near simultaneity with ingestion of the offending food and the often dramatic clinical presentations, such foods clearly do not represent “hidden” triggers for AD flares.³ The concept of food-triggered AD (FTAD) is crucial for thinking about foods that could result in true eczematous flares, which historically have been classified as early-type (<2 hours after food challenge) and late-type (≥2 hours after food challenge) reactions.^13,14 

A study of more than 1000 DBPCFCs performed in patients with AD was illustrative.¹⁵ Immediate reactions other than AD were fairly common and were observed in 40% of the food challenges compared to only 9% in the placebo group. These reactions included urticaria, angioedema, and gastrointestinal and respiratory tract symptoms. Immediate reactions of AD alone were exceedingly rare at only 0.7% and not significantly elevated compared to placebo. Just over 4% experienced both an immediate AD exacerbation along with other non-AD findings, which was significantly greater than placebo (P<.01). Although intermediate and late reactions manifesting as AD exacerbations did occur after food ingestion, they were rare (2.2% or less) and not significantly different from placebo. The authors concluded that an exacerbation of AD in the absence of other allergic symptoms in children was unlikely to be due to food,¹⁵ which is an important finding.

A recent retrospective review of 372 children with AD reported similar results.⁴ The authors defined FTAD in a different way; instead of showing a flare after a DBPCFC, they looked for “physician-noted sustained improvement in AD upon removal of a food (typically after 2–6-wk follow-up), to which the child was sensitized without any other changes in skin care.” Despite this fundamentally different approach, they similarly concluded that while food allergies were common, FTAD was relatively uncommon—found in 2% of those with mild AD, 6% of those with moderate AD, and 4% of those with severe AD.⁴ 

There are other ways that foods could contribute to disease flares, however, and one of the most compelling is that there may be broader concepts at play; perhaps some diets are not specifically driving the AD but rather are affecting inflammation in the body at large. Although somewhat speculative, there is evidence that some foods may simply be proinflammatory, working to exacerbate the disease outside of a specific mechanism, which has been seen in a variety of other conditions such as acne or rheumatoid arthritis.^16,17 To speculate further, it is possible that there may be a threshold effect such that when the AD is poorly controlled, certain factors such as inflammatory foods could lead to a flare, while when under better control, these same factors may not cause an effect.

Finally, it is important to also consider the emotional and/or psychological aspects related to food and diet. The power of the placebo in dietary change has been documented in several diseases, though this certainly is not to be dismissive of the patient’s symptoms; it seems reasonable that the very act of changing such a fundamental aspect of daily life could result in a placebo effect.^18,19 In the context of relapsing and remitting conditions such as AD, this effect may be magnified. A landmark study by Thompson and Hanifin²⁰ illustrates this possibility. The authors found that in 80% of cases in which patients were convinced that food was a major contributing factor to their AD, such concerns diminished markedly once better control of the eczema was achieved.²⁰

This brings us to what to do with an individual patient in the examination room. Because there is such widespread concern and discussion around this topic, it is important to at least briefly address it. If there are known food allergens that are being avoided, it is important to underscore the importance of continuing to avoid those foods, especially when there is actual evidence of true food allergy rather than sensitization alone. Historically, elimination diets often were recommended empirically, though more recent studies, meta-analyses, and guidance documents increasingly have recommended against them.³ In particular, there are major concerns for iatrogenic harm. 

First, heavily restricted diets may result in nutritional and/or caloric deficiencies that can be dangerous and lead to poor growth.²¹ Practices such as drinking unpasteurized milk can expose children to dangerous infections, while feeding them exclusively rice milk can lead to severe malnutrition.²² 

Second, there is a dawning realization that children with AD placed on elimination diets may actually develop true IgE-mediated allergies, including fatal anaphylaxis, to the excluded foods. In fact, one retrospective review of 298 patients with a history of AD and no prior immediate reactions found that 19% of patients developed new immediate-type hypersensitivity reactions after starting an elimination diet, presumably due to the loss of tolerance to these foods. A striking one-third of these reactions were classified as anaphylaxis, with cow’s milk and egg being the most common offenders.²³

It also is crucial to acknowledge that recommending sweeping lifestyle changes is not easy for patients, especially pediatric patients. Onerous dietary restrictions may add considerable stress, ironically a known trigger for AD itself. 

Finally, dietary modifications can be a distraction from conventional therapy and may result in treatment delays while the patient continues to experience uncontrolled symptoms of AD. 

Final Thoughts

Diet is intimately related to AD. Although the narrative continues to unfold in fascinating domains, such as the skin barrier and the microbiome, it is increasingly clear that these are intertwined and always have been. Despite the rarity of true food-triggered AD, the perception of dietary triggers is so widespread and addressing the topic is important and may help avoid unnecessary harm from unfounded extreme dietary changes. A recent multispecialty workgroup report on AD and food allergy succinctly summarized this as: “AD has many triggers and comorbidities, and food allergy is only one of the potential triggers and comorbid conditions. With regard to AD management, education and skin care are most important.”³ With proper testing, guidance, and both topical and systemic therapies, most AD can be brought under control, and for at least some patients, this may allay concerns about foods triggering their AD. 

It is unsurprising that food frequently is thought to be the culprit behind an eczema flare, especially in infants. Indeed, it often is said that infants do only 3 things: eat, sleep, and poop.¹ For those unfortunate enough to develop the signs and symptoms of atopic dermatitis (AD), food quickly emerges as a potential culprit from the tiny pool of suspects, which is against a cultural backdrop of unprecedented focus on foods and food reactions.² The prevalence of food allergies in children, though admittedly fraught with methodological difficulties, is estimated to have more than doubled from 3.4% in 1999 to 7.6% in 2018.³ As expected, prevalence rates were higher among children with other atopic comorbidities including AD, with up to 50% of children with AD demonstrating convincing food allergy.⁴ It is easy to imagine a patient conflating these 2 entities and mistaking their correlation for causation. Thus, it follows that more than 90% of parents/guardians have reported that their children have had food-induced AD, and understandably—at least according to one study—75% of parents/guardians were found to have manipulated the diet in an attempt to manage the disease.^5,6

Patients and parents/guardians are not the only ones who have suspected food as a driving force in AD. An article in the British Medical Journal from the 1800s beautifully encapsulated the depth and duration of this quandary: “There is probably no subject in which more deeply rooted convictions have been held, not only in the profession but by the laity, than the connection between diet and disease, both as regards the causation and treatment of the latter.”⁷ Herein, a wide range of food reactions is examined to highlight evidence for the role of diet in AD, which may contradict what patients—and even some clinicians—believe.

No Easy Answers

A definitive statement that food allergy is not the root cause of AD would put this issue to rest, but such simplicity does not reflect the complex reality. First, we must agree on definitions for certain terms. What do we mean by food allergy? A broader category—adverse food reactions—covers a wide range of entities, some immune mediated and some not, including lactose intolerance, irritant contact dermatitis around the mouth, and even dermatitis herpetiformis (the cutaneous manifestation of celiac disease).⁸ Although the term food allergy often is used synonymously with adverse food reactions, the exact definition of a food allergy is specific: “adverse immune responses to food proteins that result in typical clinical symptoms.”⁸ The fact that many patients and even health care practitioners seem to frequently misapply this term makes it even more confusing. 

The current focus is on foods that could trigger a flare of AD, which clearly is a broader question than food allergy sensu stricto. It seems self-evident, for example, that if an infant with AD were to (messily) eat an acidic food such as an orange, a flare-up of AD around the mouth and on the cheeks and hands would be a forgone conclusion. Similar nonimmunologic scenarios unambiguously can occur with many foods, including citrus; corn; radish; mustard; garlic; onion; pineapple; and many spices, food additives, and preservatives.⁹ Clearly there are some scenarios whereby food could trigger an AD flare, and yet this more limited vignette generally is not what patients are referring to when suggesting that food is the root cause of their AD.

The Labyrinth of Testing for Food Allergies

Although there is no reliable method for testing for irritant dermatitis, understanding the other types of tests may help guide our thinking. Testing for IgE-mediated food allergies generally is done via an immunoenzymatic serum assay that can document sensitization to a food protein; however, this testing by itself is not sufficient to diagnose a clinical food allergy.¹⁰ Similarly, skin prick testing allows for intradermal administration of a food extract to evaluate for an urticarial reaction within 10 to 15 minutes. Although the sensitivity and specificity vary by age, population, and the specific allergen being tested, these are limited to immediate-type reactions and do not reflect the potential to drive an eczematous flare.

The gold standard, if there is one, is likely the double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC), ideally with a long enough observation period to capture later-occurring reactions such as an AD flare. However, given the nature of the test—having patients eat the foods of concern and then carefully following them for reactions—it remains time consuming, expensive, and labor intensive.¹¹ 

To further complicate matters, several unvalidated tests exist such as IgG testing, atopy patch testing, kinesiology, and hair and gastric juice analysis, which remain investigational but continue to be used and may further confuse patients and clinicians.¹²

It is useful to first separate out the classic IgE-mediated food allergy reactions that are common. In these immediate-type reactions, a person sensitized to a food protein will develop characteristic cutaneous and/or extracutaneous reactions such as urticaria, angioedema, and even anaphylaxis, usually within minutes of exposure. Although it is possible that an IgE-mediated reaction could trigger an AD flare—perhaps simply by causing pruritus, which could initiate the itch-scratch cycle—because of the near simultaneity with ingestion of the offending food and the often dramatic clinical presentations, such foods clearly do not represent “hidden” triggers for AD flares.³ The concept of food-triggered AD (FTAD) is crucial for thinking about foods that could result in true eczematous flares, which historically have been classified as early-type (<2 hours after food challenge) and late-type (≥2 hours after food challenge) reactions.^13,14 

A study of more than 1000 DBPCFCs performed in patients with AD was illustrative.¹⁵ Immediate reactions other than AD were fairly common and were observed in 40% of the food challenges compared to only 9% in the placebo group. These reactions included urticaria, angioedema, and gastrointestinal and respiratory tract symptoms. Immediate reactions of AD alone were exceedingly rare at only 0.7% and not significantly elevated compared to placebo. Just over 4% experienced both an immediate AD exacerbation along with other non-AD findings, which was significantly greater than placebo (P<.01). Although intermediate and late reactions manifesting as AD exacerbations did occur after food ingestion, they were rare (2.2% or less) and not significantly different from placebo. The authors concluded that an exacerbation of AD in the absence of other allergic symptoms in children was unlikely to be due to food,¹⁵ which is an important finding.

A recent retrospective review of 372 children with AD reported similar results.⁴ The authors defined FTAD in a different way; instead of showing a flare after a DBPCFC, they looked for “physician-noted sustained improvement in AD upon removal of a food (typically after 2–6-wk follow-up), to which the child was sensitized without any other changes in skin care.” Despite this fundamentally different approach, they similarly concluded that while food allergies were common, FTAD was relatively uncommon—found in 2% of those with mild AD, 6% of those with moderate AD, and 4% of those with severe AD.⁴ 

There are other ways that foods could contribute to disease flares, however, and one of the most compelling is that there may be broader concepts at play; perhaps some diets are not specifically driving the AD but rather are affecting inflammation in the body at large. Although somewhat speculative, there is evidence that some foods may simply be proinflammatory, working to exacerbate the disease outside of a specific mechanism, which has been seen in a variety of other conditions such as acne or rheumatoid arthritis.^16,17 To speculate further, it is possible that there may be a threshold effect such that when the AD is poorly controlled, certain factors such as inflammatory foods could lead to a flare, while when under better control, these same factors may not cause an effect.

Finally, it is important to also consider the emotional and/or psychological aspects related to food and diet. The power of the placebo in dietary change has been documented in several diseases, though this certainly is not to be dismissive of the patient’s symptoms; it seems reasonable that the very act of changing such a fundamental aspect of daily life could result in a placebo effect.^18,19 In the context of relapsing and remitting conditions such as AD, this effect may be magnified. A landmark study by Thompson and Hanifin²⁰ illustrates this possibility. The authors found that in 80% of cases in which patients were convinced that food was a major contributing factor to their AD, such concerns diminished markedly once better control of the eczema was achieved.²⁰

This brings us to what to do with an individual patient in the examination room. Because there is such widespread concern and discussion around this topic, it is important to at least briefly address it. If there are known food allergens that are being avoided, it is important to underscore the importance of continuing to avoid those foods, especially when there is actual evidence of true food allergy rather than sensitization alone. Historically, elimination diets often were recommended empirically, though more recent studies, meta-analyses, and guidance documents increasingly have recommended against them.³ In particular, there are major concerns for iatrogenic harm. 

First, heavily restricted diets may result in nutritional and/or caloric deficiencies that can be dangerous and lead to poor growth.²¹ Practices such as drinking unpasteurized milk can expose children to dangerous infections, while feeding them exclusively rice milk can lead to severe malnutrition.²² 

Second, there is a dawning realization that children with AD placed on elimination diets may actually develop true IgE-mediated allergies, including fatal anaphylaxis, to the excluded foods. In fact, one retrospective review of 298 patients with a history of AD and no prior immediate reactions found that 19% of patients developed new immediate-type hypersensitivity reactions after starting an elimination diet, presumably due to the loss of tolerance to these foods. A striking one-third of these reactions were classified as anaphylaxis, with cow’s milk and egg being the most common offenders.²³

It also is crucial to acknowledge that recommending sweeping lifestyle changes is not easy for patients, especially pediatric patients. Onerous dietary restrictions may add considerable stress, ironically a known trigger for AD itself. 

Finally, dietary modifications can be a distraction from conventional therapy and may result in treatment delays while the patient continues to experience uncontrolled symptoms of AD. 

Final Thoughts

Diet is intimately related to AD. Although the narrative continues to unfold in fascinating domains, such as the skin barrier and the microbiome, it is increasingly clear that these are intertwined and always have been. Despite the rarity of true food-triggered AD, the perception of dietary triggers is so widespread and addressing the topic is important and may help avoid unnecessary harm from unfounded extreme dietary changes. A recent multispecialty workgroup report on AD and food allergy succinctly summarized this as: “AD has many triggers and comorbidities, and food allergy is only one of the potential triggers and comorbid conditions. With regard to AD management, education and skin care are most important.”³ With proper testing, guidance, and both topical and systemic therapies, most AD can be brought under control, and for at least some patients, this may allay concerns about foods triggering their AD. 

In an age of changing climate and emerging global pandemics, the ability of residency programs to prepare for and adapt to potential disasters may be paramount in preserving the training of physicians. The current literature regarding residency program disaster preparedness, which focuses predominantly on hurricanes and COVID-19,^1-8 is lacking in recommendations specific to dermatology residency programs. Likewise, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) guidelines⁹ do not address dermatology-specific concerns in disaster preparedness or response. Herein, we propose recommendations to mitigate the impact of various types of disasters on dermatology residency programs and their trainees with regard to resident safety and wellness, resident education, and patient care (Table).

Resident Safety and Wellness

Role of the Program Director—The role of the program director is critical, serving as a figure of structure and reassurance.^4,7,10 Once concern of disaster arises, the program director should contact the Designated Institutional Official (DIO) to express concerns about possible disruptions to resident training. The DIO should then contact the ACGME within 10 days to report the disaster and submit a request for emergency (eg, pandemic) or extraordinary circumstances (eg, natural disaster) categorization.^4,9 Program directors should promptly prepare plans for program reconfiguration and resident transfers in alignment with ACGME requirements to maintain evaluation and completion of core competencies of training during disasters.⁹ Program directors should prioritize the safety of trainees during the immediate threat with clear guidelines on sheltering, evacuations, or quarantines; a timeline of program recovery based on communication with residents, faculty, and administration should then be established.^10,11

Communication—Establishing a strong line of communication between program directors and residents is paramount. Collection of emergency noninstitutional contact information, establishment of a centralized website for information dissemination, use of noninstitutional email and proxy servers outside of the location of impact, social media updates, on-site use of 2-way radios, and program-wide conference calls when possible should be strongly considered as part of the disaster response.^2-4,12,13

Resident Accommodations and Mental Health—If training is disrupted, residents should be reassured of continued access to salary, housing, food, or other resources as necessary.^3,4,11 There should be clear contingency plans if residents need to leave the program for extended periods of time due to injury, illness, or personal circumstances. Although relevant in all types of disasters, resident mental health and response to trauma also must be addressed. Access to counseling, morale-building opportunities (eg, resident social events), and screening for depression or posttraumatic stress disorder may help promote well-being among residents following traumatic events.¹⁴

Resident Education

Participation in Disaster Relief—Residents may seek to aid in the disaster response, which may prove challenging in the setting of programs with high patient volume.⁴ In coordination with the ACGME and graduate medical education governing bodies, program directors should consider how residents may fulfill dermatology training requirements in conjunction with disaster relief efforts, such as working in an inpatient setting or providing wound care.¹⁰

Continued Didactic Education—The use of online learning and conference calls for continuing the dermatology curriculum is an efficient means to maintaining resident education when meeting in person poses risks to residents.¹⁵ Projections of microscopy images, clinical photographs, or other instructional materials allow for continued instruction on resident examination, histopathology, and diagnostic skills.

Continued Clinical Training—If the home institution cannot support the operation of dermatology clinics, residents should be guaranteed continued training at other institutions. Agreements with other dermatology programs, community hospitals, or private dermatology practices should be established in advance, with consideration given to the number of residents a program can support, funding transfers, and credentialing requirements.^2,4,5

Prolonged Disruptions—Nonessential departments of medical institutions may cease to function during war or mass casualty disasters, and it may be unsafe to send dermatology residents to other institutions or clinical areas. If the threat is prolonged, programs may need to consider allowing current residents a longer duration of training despite potential overlap with incoming dermatology residents.⁷

Patient Care

Disruptions to Clinic Operations—Regarding threats of violence, dangerous exposures, or natural disasters, there should be clear guidelines on sheltering in the clinical setting or stabilizing patients during a procedure.¹¹ Equipment used by residents such as laptops, microscopes, and treatment devices (eg, lasers) should be stored in weather-safe locations that would not be notably impacted by moisture or structural damage to the clinic building. If electricity or internet access are compromised, paper medical records should be available to residents to continue clinical operations. Electronic health records used by residents should regularly be backed up on remote servers or cloud storage to allow continued access to patient health information if on-site servers are not functional.¹² If disruptions are prolonged, residency program administration should coordinate with the institution to ensure there is adequate supply and storage of medications (eg, lidocaine, botulinum toxin) as well as a continued means of delivering biologic medications to patients and an ability to obtain laboratory or dermatopathology services.

In-Person Appointments vs Telemedicine—There are benefits to both residency training and patient care when physicians are able to perform in-person examinations, biopsies, and in-office treatments.¹⁶ Programs should ensure an adequate supply of personal protective equipment to continue in-office appointments, vaccinations, and medical care if a resident or other members of the team are exposed to an infectious disease.⁷ If in-person appointments are limited or impossible, telemedicine capabilities may still allow residents to meet program requirements.^7,10,15 However, reduced patient volume due to decreased elective visits or procedures may complicate the fulfillment of clinical requirements, which may need to be adjusted in the wake of a disaster.⁷

Use of Immunosuppressive Therapies—Residency programs should address the risks of prescribing immunosuppressive therapies (eg, biologics) during an infectious threat with their residents and encourage trainees to counsel patients on the importance of preventative measures to reduce risks for severe infection.¹⁷

Final Thoughts

Disasters often are unpredictable. Dermatology residency programs will not be immune to the future impacts of climate change, violent threats, or emerging pandemics. Lessons from prior natural disasters and the COVID-19 pandemic have made it clear that program directors need to be adaptable. If they plan proactively, comprehensive disaster preparedness can help to maintain high-quality training of dermatology residents in the face of extraordinary and challenging circumstances, promoting the resiliency and sustainability of graduate medical education.

In an age of changing climate and emerging global pandemics, the ability of residency programs to prepare for and adapt to potential disasters may be paramount in preserving the training of physicians. The current literature regarding residency program disaster preparedness, which focuses predominantly on hurricanes and COVID-19,^1-8 is lacking in recommendations specific to dermatology residency programs. Likewise, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) guidelines⁹ do not address dermatology-specific concerns in disaster preparedness or response. Herein, we propose recommendations to mitigate the impact of various types of disasters on dermatology residency programs and their trainees with regard to resident safety and wellness, resident education, and patient care (Table).

Resident Safety and Wellness

Role of the Program Director—The role of the program director is critical, serving as a figure of structure and reassurance.^4,7,10 Once concern of disaster arises, the program director should contact the Designated Institutional Official (DIO) to express concerns about possible disruptions to resident training. The DIO should then contact the ACGME within 10 days to report the disaster and submit a request for emergency (eg, pandemic) or extraordinary circumstances (eg, natural disaster) categorization.^4,9 Program directors should promptly prepare plans for program reconfiguration and resident transfers in alignment with ACGME requirements to maintain evaluation and completion of core competencies of training during disasters.⁹ Program directors should prioritize the safety of trainees during the immediate threat with clear guidelines on sheltering, evacuations, or quarantines; a timeline of program recovery based on communication with residents, faculty, and administration should then be established.^10,11

Communication—Establishing a strong line of communication between program directors and residents is paramount. Collection of emergency noninstitutional contact information, establishment of a centralized website for information dissemination, use of noninstitutional email and proxy servers outside of the location of impact, social media updates, on-site use of 2-way radios, and program-wide conference calls when possible should be strongly considered as part of the disaster response.^2-4,12,13

Resident Accommodations and Mental Health—If training is disrupted, residents should be reassured of continued access to salary, housing, food, or other resources as necessary.^3,4,11 There should be clear contingency plans if residents need to leave the program for extended periods of time due to injury, illness, or personal circumstances. Although relevant in all types of disasters, resident mental health and response to trauma also must be addressed. Access to counseling, morale-building opportunities (eg, resident social events), and screening for depression or posttraumatic stress disorder may help promote well-being among residents following traumatic events.¹⁴

Resident Education

Participation in Disaster Relief—Residents may seek to aid in the disaster response, which may prove challenging in the setting of programs with high patient volume.⁴ In coordination with the ACGME and graduate medical education governing bodies, program directors should consider how residents may fulfill dermatology training requirements in conjunction with disaster relief efforts, such as working in an inpatient setting or providing wound care.¹⁰

Continued Didactic Education—The use of online learning and conference calls for continuing the dermatology curriculum is an efficient means to maintaining resident education when meeting in person poses risks to residents.¹⁵ Projections of microscopy images, clinical photographs, or other instructional materials allow for continued instruction on resident examination, histopathology, and diagnostic skills.

Continued Clinical Training—If the home institution cannot support the operation of dermatology clinics, residents should be guaranteed continued training at other institutions. Agreements with other dermatology programs, community hospitals, or private dermatology practices should be established in advance, with consideration given to the number of residents a program can support, funding transfers, and credentialing requirements.^2,4,5

Prolonged Disruptions—Nonessential departments of medical institutions may cease to function during war or mass casualty disasters, and it may be unsafe to send dermatology residents to other institutions or clinical areas. If the threat is prolonged, programs may need to consider allowing current residents a longer duration of training despite potential overlap with incoming dermatology residents.⁷

Patient Care

Disruptions to Clinic Operations—Regarding threats of violence, dangerous exposures, or natural disasters, there should be clear guidelines on sheltering in the clinical setting or stabilizing patients during a procedure.¹¹ Equipment used by residents such as laptops, microscopes, and treatment devices (eg, lasers) should be stored in weather-safe locations that would not be notably impacted by moisture or structural damage to the clinic building. If electricity or internet access are compromised, paper medical records should be available to residents to continue clinical operations. Electronic health records used by residents should regularly be backed up on remote servers or cloud storage to allow continued access to patient health information if on-site servers are not functional.¹² If disruptions are prolonged, residency program administration should coordinate with the institution to ensure there is adequate supply and storage of medications (eg, lidocaine, botulinum toxin) as well as a continued means of delivering biologic medications to patients and an ability to obtain laboratory or dermatopathology services.

In-Person Appointments vs Telemedicine—There are benefits to both residency training and patient care when physicians are able to perform in-person examinations, biopsies, and in-office treatments.¹⁶ Programs should ensure an adequate supply of personal protective equipment to continue in-office appointments, vaccinations, and medical care if a resident or other members of the team are exposed to an infectious disease.⁷ If in-person appointments are limited or impossible, telemedicine capabilities may still allow residents to meet program requirements.^7,10,15 However, reduced patient volume due to decreased elective visits or procedures may complicate the fulfillment of clinical requirements, which may need to be adjusted in the wake of a disaster.⁷

Use of Immunosuppressive Therapies—Residency programs should address the risks of prescribing immunosuppressive therapies (eg, biologics) during an infectious threat with their residents and encourage trainees to counsel patients on the importance of preventative measures to reduce risks for severe infection.¹⁷

Final Thoughts

Disasters often are unpredictable. Dermatology residency programs will not be immune to the future impacts of climate change, violent threats, or emerging pandemics. Lessons from prior natural disasters and the COVID-19 pandemic have made it clear that program directors need to be adaptable. If they plan proactively, comprehensive disaster preparedness can help to maintain high-quality training of dermatology residents in the face of extraordinary and challenging circumstances, promoting the resiliency and sustainability of graduate medical education.

In an age of changing climate and emerging global pandemics, the ability of residency programs to prepare for and adapt to potential disasters may be paramount in preserving the training of physicians. The current literature regarding residency program disaster preparedness, which focuses predominantly on hurricanes and COVID-19,^1-8 is lacking in recommendations specific to dermatology residency programs. Likewise, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) guidelines⁹ do not address dermatology-specific concerns in disaster preparedness or response. Herein, we propose recommendations to mitigate the impact of various types of disasters on dermatology residency programs and their trainees with regard to resident safety and wellness, resident education, and patient care (Table).

Resident Safety and Wellness

Role of the Program Director—The role of the program director is critical, serving as a figure of structure and reassurance.^4,7,10 Once concern of disaster arises, the program director should contact the Designated Institutional Official (DIO) to express concerns about possible disruptions to resident training. The DIO should then contact the ACGME within 10 days to report the disaster and submit a request for emergency (eg, pandemic) or extraordinary circumstances (eg, natural disaster) categorization.^4,9 Program directors should promptly prepare plans for program reconfiguration and resident transfers in alignment with ACGME requirements to maintain evaluation and completion of core competencies of training during disasters.⁹ Program directors should prioritize the safety of trainees during the immediate threat with clear guidelines on sheltering, evacuations, or quarantines; a timeline of program recovery based on communication with residents, faculty, and administration should then be established.^10,11

Communication—Establishing a strong line of communication between program directors and residents is paramount. Collection of emergency noninstitutional contact information, establishment of a centralized website for information dissemination, use of noninstitutional email and proxy servers outside of the location of impact, social media updates, on-site use of 2-way radios, and program-wide conference calls when possible should be strongly considered as part of the disaster response.^2-4,12,13

Resident Accommodations and Mental Health—If training is disrupted, residents should be reassured of continued access to salary, housing, food, or other resources as necessary.^3,4,11 There should be clear contingency plans if residents need to leave the program for extended periods of time due to injury, illness, or personal circumstances. Although relevant in all types of disasters, resident mental health and response to trauma also must be addressed. Access to counseling, morale-building opportunities (eg, resident social events), and screening for depression or posttraumatic stress disorder may help promote well-being among residents following traumatic events.¹⁴

Resident Education

Participation in Disaster Relief—Residents may seek to aid in the disaster response, which may prove challenging in the setting of programs with high patient volume.⁴ In coordination with the ACGME and graduate medical education governing bodies, program directors should consider how residents may fulfill dermatology training requirements in conjunction with disaster relief efforts, such as working in an inpatient setting or providing wound care.¹⁰

Continued Didactic Education—The use of online learning and conference calls for continuing the dermatology curriculum is an efficient means to maintaining resident education when meeting in person poses risks to residents.¹⁵ Projections of microscopy images, clinical photographs, or other instructional materials allow for continued instruction on resident examination, histopathology, and diagnostic skills.

Continued Clinical Training—If the home institution cannot support the operation of dermatology clinics, residents should be guaranteed continued training at other institutions. Agreements with other dermatology programs, community hospitals, or private dermatology practices should be established in advance, with consideration given to the number of residents a program can support, funding transfers, and credentialing requirements.^2,4,5

Prolonged Disruptions—Nonessential departments of medical institutions may cease to function during war or mass casualty disasters, and it may be unsafe to send dermatology residents to other institutions or clinical areas. If the threat is prolonged, programs may need to consider allowing current residents a longer duration of training despite potential overlap with incoming dermatology residents.⁷

Patient Care

Disruptions to Clinic Operations—Regarding threats of violence, dangerous exposures, or natural disasters, there should be clear guidelines on sheltering in the clinical setting or stabilizing patients during a procedure.¹¹ Equipment used by residents such as laptops, microscopes, and treatment devices (eg, lasers) should be stored in weather-safe locations that would not be notably impacted by moisture or structural damage to the clinic building. If electricity or internet access are compromised, paper medical records should be available to residents to continue clinical operations. Electronic health records used by residents should regularly be backed up on remote servers or cloud storage to allow continued access to patient health information if on-site servers are not functional.¹² If disruptions are prolonged, residency program administration should coordinate with the institution to ensure there is adequate supply and storage of medications (eg, lidocaine, botulinum toxin) as well as a continued means of delivering biologic medications to patients and an ability to obtain laboratory or dermatopathology services.

In-Person Appointments vs Telemedicine—There are benefits to both residency training and patient care when physicians are able to perform in-person examinations, biopsies, and in-office treatments.¹⁶ Programs should ensure an adequate supply of personal protective equipment to continue in-office appointments, vaccinations, and medical care if a resident or other members of the team are exposed to an infectious disease.⁷ If in-person appointments are limited or impossible, telemedicine capabilities may still allow residents to meet program requirements.^7,10,15 However, reduced patient volume due to decreased elective visits or procedures may complicate the fulfillment of clinical requirements, which may need to be adjusted in the wake of a disaster.⁷

Use of Immunosuppressive Therapies—Residency programs should address the risks of prescribing immunosuppressive therapies (eg, biologics) during an infectious threat with their residents and encourage trainees to counsel patients on the importance of preventative measures to reduce risks for severe infection.¹⁷

Final Thoughts

Disasters often are unpredictable. Dermatology residency programs will not be immune to the future impacts of climate change, violent threats, or emerging pandemics. Lessons from prior natural disasters and the COVID-19 pandemic have made it clear that program directors need to be adaptable. If they plan proactively, comprehensive disaster preparedness can help to maintain high-quality training of dermatology residents in the face of extraordinary and challenging circumstances, promoting the resiliency and sustainability of graduate medical education.

Practice Gap

A male patient presented with 2 concerning lesions, which histopathology revealed were invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) on the right medial chest and SCC in situ on the right upper scapular region. Both were treated with wide local excision; margins were clear in our office the same day.

This case highlighted a practice gap in postoperative care. Two factors posed a challenge to proper postoperative wound care for our patient:

• Because of the high risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the patient hoped to limit exposure by avoiding an office visit to remove the bandage.

• The patient did not have someone at home to serve as an immediate support system, which made it impossible for him to rely on others for postoperative wound care.

Previously, the patient had to ask a friend to remove a bandage for melanoma in situ on the inner aspect of the left upper arm. Therefore, after this procedure, the patient asked if the bandage could be fashioned in a manner that would allow him to remove it without assistance (Figure 1).

Technique

In constructing a bandage that is easier to remove, some necessary pressure that is provided by the bandage often is sacrificed by making it looser. Considering that our patient had moderate bleeding during the procedure—in part because he took low-dose aspirin (81 mg/d)—it was important to maintain firm pressure under the bandage postoperatively to help prevent untoward bleeding. Furthermore, because of the location of the treated site and the patient’s limited range of motion, it was not feasible for him to reach the area on the scapula and remove the bandage.¹

For easy self-removal, we designed a bandage with a pull tab that was within the patient’s reach. Suitable materials for the pull tab bandage included surgical tape, bandaging tape with adequate stretch, sterile nonadhesive gauze, fenestrated surgical gauze, and a topical emollient such as petroleum jelly or antibacterial ointment.

To clean the site and decrease the amount of oil that would reduce the effectiveness of the adhesive, the wound was prepared with 70% alcohol. The site was then treated with petroleum jelly.

Next, we designed 2 pull tab bandage prototypes that allowed easy self-removal. For both prototypes, sterile nonadhesive gauze was applied to the wound along with folded and fenestrated gauze, which provided pressure. We used prototype #1 in our patient, and prototype #2 was demonstrated as an option.

Prototype #1—We created 2 tabs—each 2-feet long—using bandaging tape that was folded on itself once horizontally (Figure 2). The tabs were aligned on either side of the wound, the tops of which sat approximately 2 inches above the top of the first layer of adhesive bandage. An initial layer of adhesive surgical dressing was applied to cover the wound; 1 inch of the dressing was left exposed on the top of each tab. In addition, there were 2 “feet” running on the bottom.

The tops of the tabs were folded back over the adhesive tape, creating a type of “hook.” An additional final layer of adhesive tape was applied to ensure adequate pressure on the surgical site.

The patient was instructed to remove the bandage 2 days after the procedure. The outcome was qualified through a 3-day postoperative telephone call. The patient was asked about postoperative pain and his level of satisfaction with treatment. He was asked if he had any changes such as bleeding, swelling, signs of infection, or increased pain in the days after surgery or perceived postoperative complications, such as irritation. We asked the patient about the relative ease of removing the bandage and if removal was painful. He reported that the bandage was easy to remove, and that doing so was not painful; furthermore, he did not have problems with the bandage or healing and did not experience any medical changes. He found the bandage to be comfortable. The patient stated that the hanging feet of the prototype #1 bandage were not bothersome and were sturdy for the time that the bandage was on.

Prototype #2—We prepared a bandage using surgical packing as the tab (Figure 3). The packing was slowly placed around the site, which was already covered with nonadhesive gauze and fenestrated surgical gauze, with adequate spacing between each loop (for a total of 3 loops), 1 of which crossed over the third loop so that the adhesive bandaging tape could be removed easily. This allowed for a single tab that could be removed by a single pull. A final layer of adhesive tape was applied to ensure adequate pressure, similar to prototype #1. The same postoperative protocol was employed to provide a consistent standard of care. We recommend use of this prototype when surgical tape is not available, and surgical packing can be used as a substitute.

Practice Implications

Patients have a better appreciation for avoiding excess visits to medical offices due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2 infection is greater when patients who lack a support system must return to the office for aftercare or to have a bandage removed. Although protection offered by the COVID-19 vaccine alleviates concern, many patients have realized the benefits of only visiting medical offices in person when necessary.

The concept of pull tab bandages that can be removed by the patient at home has other applications. For example, patients who travel a long distance to see their physician will benefit from easier aftercare and avoid additional follow-up visits when provided with a self-removable bandage.

Practice Gap

A male patient presented with 2 concerning lesions, which histopathology revealed were invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) on the right medial chest and SCC in situ on the right upper scapular region. Both were treated with wide local excision; margins were clear in our office the same day.

This case highlighted a practice gap in postoperative care. Two factors posed a challenge to proper postoperative wound care for our patient:

• Because of the high risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the patient hoped to limit exposure by avoiding an office visit to remove the bandage.

• The patient did not have someone at home to serve as an immediate support system, which made it impossible for him to rely on others for postoperative wound care.

Previously, the patient had to ask a friend to remove a bandage for melanoma in situ on the inner aspect of the left upper arm. Therefore, after this procedure, the patient asked if the bandage could be fashioned in a manner that would allow him to remove it without assistance (Figure 1).

Technique

In constructing a bandage that is easier to remove, some necessary pressure that is provided by the bandage often is sacrificed by making it looser. Considering that our patient had moderate bleeding during the procedure—in part because he took low-dose aspirin (81 mg/d)—it was important to maintain firm pressure under the bandage postoperatively to help prevent untoward bleeding. Furthermore, because of the location of the treated site and the patient’s limited range of motion, it was not feasible for him to reach the area on the scapula and remove the bandage.¹

For easy self-removal, we designed a bandage with a pull tab that was within the patient’s reach. Suitable materials for the pull tab bandage included surgical tape, bandaging tape with adequate stretch, sterile nonadhesive gauze, fenestrated surgical gauze, and a topical emollient such as petroleum jelly or antibacterial ointment.

To clean the site and decrease the amount of oil that would reduce the effectiveness of the adhesive, the wound was prepared with 70% alcohol. The site was then treated with petroleum jelly.

Next, we designed 2 pull tab bandage prototypes that allowed easy self-removal. For both prototypes, sterile nonadhesive gauze was applied to the wound along with folded and fenestrated gauze, which provided pressure. We used prototype #1 in our patient, and prototype #2 was demonstrated as an option.

Prototype #1—We created 2 tabs—each 2-feet long—using bandaging tape that was folded on itself once horizontally (Figure 2). The tabs were aligned on either side of the wound, the tops of which sat approximately 2 inches above the top of the first layer of adhesive bandage. An initial layer of adhesive surgical dressing was applied to cover the wound; 1 inch of the dressing was left exposed on the top of each tab. In addition, there were 2 “feet” running on the bottom.

The tops of the tabs were folded back over the adhesive tape, creating a type of “hook.” An additional final layer of adhesive tape was applied to ensure adequate pressure on the surgical site.

The patient was instructed to remove the bandage 2 days after the procedure. The outcome was qualified through a 3-day postoperative telephone call. The patient was asked about postoperative pain and his level of satisfaction with treatment. He was asked if he had any changes such as bleeding, swelling, signs of infection, or increased pain in the days after surgery or perceived postoperative complications, such as irritation. We asked the patient about the relative ease of removing the bandage and if removal was painful. He reported that the bandage was easy to remove, and that doing so was not painful; furthermore, he did not have problems with the bandage or healing and did not experience any medical changes. He found the bandage to be comfortable. The patient stated that the hanging feet of the prototype #1 bandage were not bothersome and were sturdy for the time that the bandage was on.

Prototype #2—We prepared a bandage using surgical packing as the tab (Figure 3). The packing was slowly placed around the site, which was already covered with nonadhesive gauze and fenestrated surgical gauze, with adequate spacing between each loop (for a total of 3 loops), 1 of which crossed over the third loop so that the adhesive bandaging tape could be removed easily. This allowed for a single tab that could be removed by a single pull. A final layer of adhesive tape was applied to ensure adequate pressure, similar to prototype #1. The same postoperative protocol was employed to provide a consistent standard of care. We recommend use of this prototype when surgical tape is not available, and surgical packing can be used as a substitute.

Practice Implications

Patients have a better appreciation for avoiding excess visits to medical offices due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2 infection is greater when patients who lack a support system must return to the office for aftercare or to have a bandage removed. Although protection offered by the COVID-19 vaccine alleviates concern, many patients have realized the benefits of only visiting medical offices in person when necessary.

The concept of pull tab bandages that can be removed by the patient at home has other applications. For example, patients who travel a long distance to see their physician will benefit from easier aftercare and avoid additional follow-up visits when provided with a self-removable bandage.

Practice Gap

A male patient presented with 2 concerning lesions, which histopathology revealed were invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) on the right medial chest and SCC in situ on the right upper scapular region. Both were treated with wide local excision; margins were clear in our office the same day.

This case highlighted a practice gap in postoperative care. Two factors posed a challenge to proper postoperative wound care for our patient:

• Because of the high risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the patient hoped to limit exposure by avoiding an office visit to remove the bandage.

• The patient did not have someone at home to serve as an immediate support system, which made it impossible for him to rely on others for postoperative wound care.

Previously, the patient had to ask a friend to remove a bandage for melanoma in situ on the inner aspect of the left upper arm. Therefore, after this procedure, the patient asked if the bandage could be fashioned in a manner that would allow him to remove it without assistance (Figure 1).

Technique

In constructing a bandage that is easier to remove, some necessary pressure that is provided by the bandage often is sacrificed by making it looser. Considering that our patient had moderate bleeding during the procedure—in part because he took low-dose aspirin (81 mg/d)—it was important to maintain firm pressure under the bandage postoperatively to help prevent untoward bleeding. Furthermore, because of the location of the treated site and the patient’s limited range of motion, it was not feasible for him to reach the area on the scapula and remove the bandage.¹

For easy self-removal, we designed a bandage with a pull tab that was within the patient’s reach. Suitable materials for the pull tab bandage included surgical tape, bandaging tape with adequate stretch, sterile nonadhesive gauze, fenestrated surgical gauze, and a topical emollient such as petroleum jelly or antibacterial ointment.

To clean the site and decrease the amount of oil that would reduce the effectiveness of the adhesive, the wound was prepared with 70% alcohol. The site was then treated with petroleum jelly.

Next, we designed 2 pull tab bandage prototypes that allowed easy self-removal. For both prototypes, sterile nonadhesive gauze was applied to the wound along with folded and fenestrated gauze, which provided pressure. We used prototype #1 in our patient, and prototype #2 was demonstrated as an option.

Prototype #1—We created 2 tabs—each 2-feet long—using bandaging tape that was folded on itself once horizontally (Figure 2). The tabs were aligned on either side of the wound, the tops of which sat approximately 2 inches above the top of the first layer of adhesive bandage. An initial layer of adhesive surgical dressing was applied to cover the wound; 1 inch of the dressing was left exposed on the top of each tab. In addition, there were 2 “feet” running on the bottom.

The tops of the tabs were folded back over the adhesive tape, creating a type of “hook.” An additional final layer of adhesive tape was applied to ensure adequate pressure on the surgical site.

The patient was instructed to remove the bandage 2 days after the procedure. The outcome was qualified through a 3-day postoperative telephone call. The patient was asked about postoperative pain and his level of satisfaction with treatment. He was asked if he had any changes such as bleeding, swelling, signs of infection, or increased pain in the days after surgery or perceived postoperative complications, such as irritation. We asked the patient about the relative ease of removing the bandage and if removal was painful. He reported that the bandage was easy to remove, and that doing so was not painful; furthermore, he did not have problems with the bandage or healing and did not experience any medical changes. He found the bandage to be comfortable. The patient stated that the hanging feet of the prototype #1 bandage were not bothersome and were sturdy for the time that the bandage was on.

Prototype #2—We prepared a bandage using surgical packing as the tab (Figure 3). The packing was slowly placed around the site, which was already covered with nonadhesive gauze and fenestrated surgical gauze, with adequate spacing between each loop (for a total of 3 loops), 1 of which crossed over the third loop so that the adhesive bandaging tape could be removed easily. This allowed for a single tab that could be removed by a single pull. A final layer of adhesive tape was applied to ensure adequate pressure, similar to prototype #1. The same postoperative protocol was employed to provide a consistent standard of care. We recommend use of this prototype when surgical tape is not available, and surgical packing can be used as a substitute.

Practice Implications

Patients have a better appreciation for avoiding excess visits to medical offices due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2 infection is greater when patients who lack a support system must return to the office for aftercare or to have a bandage removed. Although protection offered by the COVID-19 vaccine alleviates concern, many patients have realized the benefits of only visiting medical offices in person when necessary.

The concept of pull tab bandages that can be removed by the patient at home has other applications. For example, patients who travel a long distance to see their physician will benefit from easier aftercare and avoid additional follow-up visits when provided with a self-removable bandage.

Noninvasive cosmetic treatments have been available for several years, but in the clinical experience of Jean Carruthers, MD, men have been slow to embrace them with the same gusto as women.

However, this could be changing as millennials – who tend to be more proactive about efforts to prevent skin aging – are getting older.

At a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy, Dr. Carruthers referred to the results of an online survey of 600 men aged 30-65 years conducted by Jared Jagdeo, MD, and colleagues in 2016, to gauge attitudes toward age-related changes of their facial features and their preferences for prioritizing treatment. The top five barriers to treatment cited by the respondents were: “I don’t think I need it yet” (47%); “concerned about safety/side effects” (46%); “concerned about injecting a foreign substance into my body” (45%); “cost” (42%), and “concerned my face won’t look natural” (41%).

“Since then, millennials took over as the largest portion of our workforce in North America,” said Dr. Carruthers who, with her husband, Alastair Carruthers, MD, pioneered the cosmetic use of onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox). “Millennials are interested in how they look and how to keep their aesthetic the best it can possibly be,” she said, so there may be “a generational aspect to this.”

Another factor that may affect the uptake of cosmetic procedures among men is the number of hours they spend gazing at their own image on a computer screen. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, men have spent an increasing number of hours on video-conferencing calls via Zoom and other platforms, causing them to rethink how they view their appearance, Dr. Carruthers added. “Zoom dysmorphia” is the term that describes the phenomenon that developed during the pandemic where more patients expressed a desire to make changes to their appearance, including nose jobs and smoothing out forehead wrinkles.

“When we’re on a Zoom call, we’re spending 40% of our time looking at ourselves,” said Dr. Carruthers, clinical professor of ophthalmology and visual sciences at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. “This would hint that the looking glass is not as powerful as the computer screen to motivate men” to pursue aesthetic treatments.

According to data from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, the top 5 cosmetic surgical procedures performed in men in 2020 were nose shaping, eyelid surgery, cheek implants, liposuction, and ear surgery. The top 5 minimally-invasive procedures in men were botulinum toxin type A, followed by laser skin resurfacing, laser hair removal, soft tissue fillers, and microdermabrasion.

Why might men consider an injectable instead of surgery? Dr. Carruthers asked. “According to the 2016 survey by Dr. Jagdeo and colleagues, it’s to appear more youthful and to appear good for their age.”

From a clinical standpoint, success comes from understanding the subtle differences between treating men and women, she added.

In a 2022 article about optimizing skin tightening in aesthetics in men, Christian A. Albornoz, MD, and colleagues noted that in contrast to women, men “tend to have higher levels of collagen density and greater skin thickness, but these begin to decrease earlier on. They can also more frequently have severe photodamage”.

In another article published in 2018, Terrence Keaney, MD, and colleagues reviewed the objective data available on male aging and aesthetics. They stated that a “communication gap exists for men, as evidenced by the lack of information available online or by word of mouth about injectable treatments” and concluded that “educating men about available aesthetic treatments and about the safety and side effects associated with each treatment, as well as addressing concerns about their treatment results looking natural, are key considerations.”

That sentiment resonates with Dr. Carruthers. Part of the reason why men have not sought cosmetic treatments along with their female partners and friends seeking cosmetic treatments “is that they haven’t had anything in their cup,” she said. “Maybe this is something we need to think about, to try and help men come in and enjoy the positive benefits of aesthetic, noninvasive cosmetic treatments.”

The course was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Wellman Center for Photomedicine.

Dr. Carruthers disclosed that she is a consultant and researcher for Alastin, Appiell, Allergan Aesthetics, Avari Medical, Bonti, Evolus, Fount Bio, Jeune Aesthetics, Merz, and Revance Biopharma.

Noninvasive cosmetic treatments have been available for several years, but in the clinical experience of Jean Carruthers, MD, men have been slow to embrace them with the same gusto as women.

However, this could be changing as millennials – who tend to be more proactive about efforts to prevent skin aging – are getting older.

At a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy, Dr. Carruthers referred to the results of an online survey of 600 men aged 30-65 years conducted by Jared Jagdeo, MD, and colleagues in 2016, to gauge attitudes toward age-related changes of their facial features and their preferences for prioritizing treatment. The top five barriers to treatment cited by the respondents were: “I don’t think I need it yet” (47%); “concerned about safety/side effects” (46%); “concerned about injecting a foreign substance into my body” (45%); “cost” (42%), and “concerned my face won’t look natural” (41%).

“Since then, millennials took over as the largest portion of our workforce in North America,” said Dr. Carruthers who, with her husband, Alastair Carruthers, MD, pioneered the cosmetic use of onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox). “Millennials are interested in how they look and how to keep their aesthetic the best it can possibly be,” she said, so there may be “a generational aspect to this.”

Another factor that may affect the uptake of cosmetic procedures among men is the number of hours they spend gazing at their own image on a computer screen. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, men have spent an increasing number of hours on video-conferencing calls via Zoom and other platforms, causing them to rethink how they view their appearance, Dr. Carruthers added. “Zoom dysmorphia” is the term that describes the phenomenon that developed during the pandemic where more patients expressed a desire to make changes to their appearance, including nose jobs and smoothing out forehead wrinkles.

“When we’re on a Zoom call, we’re spending 40% of our time looking at ourselves,” said Dr. Carruthers, clinical professor of ophthalmology and visual sciences at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. “This would hint that the looking glass is not as powerful as the computer screen to motivate men” to pursue aesthetic treatments.

According to data from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, the top 5 cosmetic surgical procedures performed in men in 2020 were nose shaping, eyelid surgery, cheek implants, liposuction, and ear surgery. The top 5 minimally-invasive procedures in men were botulinum toxin type A, followed by laser skin resurfacing, laser hair removal, soft tissue fillers, and microdermabrasion.

Why might men consider an injectable instead of surgery? Dr. Carruthers asked. “According to the 2016 survey by Dr. Jagdeo and colleagues, it’s to appear more youthful and to appear good for their age.”

From a clinical standpoint, success comes from understanding the subtle differences between treating men and women, she added.

In a 2022 article about optimizing skin tightening in aesthetics in men, Christian A. Albornoz, MD, and colleagues noted that in contrast to women, men “tend to have higher levels of collagen density and greater skin thickness, but these begin to decrease earlier on. They can also more frequently have severe photodamage”.

In another article published in 2018, Terrence Keaney, MD, and colleagues reviewed the objective data available on male aging and aesthetics. They stated that a “communication gap exists for men, as evidenced by the lack of information available online or by word of mouth about injectable treatments” and concluded that “educating men about available aesthetic treatments and about the safety and side effects associated with each treatment, as well as addressing concerns about their treatment results looking natural, are key considerations.”

That sentiment resonates with Dr. Carruthers. Part of the reason why men have not sought cosmetic treatments along with their female partners and friends seeking cosmetic treatments “is that they haven’t had anything in their cup,” she said. “Maybe this is something we need to think about, to try and help men come in and enjoy the positive benefits of aesthetic, noninvasive cosmetic treatments.”

The course was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Wellman Center for Photomedicine.

Dr. Carruthers disclosed that she is a consultant and researcher for Alastin, Appiell, Allergan Aesthetics, Avari Medical, Bonti, Evolus, Fount Bio, Jeune Aesthetics, Merz, and Revance Biopharma.

Noninvasive cosmetic treatments have been available for several years, but in the clinical experience of Jean Carruthers, MD, men have been slow to embrace them with the same gusto as women.

However, this could be changing as millennials – who tend to be more proactive about efforts to prevent skin aging – are getting older.

At a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy, Dr. Carruthers referred to the results of an online survey of 600 men aged 30-65 years conducted by Jared Jagdeo, MD, and colleagues in 2016, to gauge attitudes toward age-related changes of their facial features and their preferences for prioritizing treatment. The top five barriers to treatment cited by the respondents were: “I don’t think I need it yet” (47%); “concerned about safety/side effects” (46%); “concerned about injecting a foreign substance into my body” (45%); “cost” (42%), and “concerned my face won’t look natural” (41%).

“Since then, millennials took over as the largest portion of our workforce in North America,” said Dr. Carruthers who, with her husband, Alastair Carruthers, MD, pioneered the cosmetic use of onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox). “Millennials are interested in how they look and how to keep their aesthetic the best it can possibly be,” she said, so there may be “a generational aspect to this.”

Another factor that may affect the uptake of cosmetic procedures among men is the number of hours they spend gazing at their own image on a computer screen. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, men have spent an increasing number of hours on video-conferencing calls via Zoom and other platforms, causing them to rethink how they view their appearance, Dr. Carruthers added. “Zoom dysmorphia” is the term that describes the phenomenon that developed during the pandemic where more patients expressed a desire to make changes to their appearance, including nose jobs and smoothing out forehead wrinkles.

“When we’re on a Zoom call, we’re spending 40% of our time looking at ourselves,” said Dr. Carruthers, clinical professor of ophthalmology and visual sciences at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. “This would hint that the looking glass is not as powerful as the computer screen to motivate men” to pursue aesthetic treatments.

According to data from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, the top 5 cosmetic surgical procedures performed in men in 2020 were nose shaping, eyelid surgery, cheek implants, liposuction, and ear surgery. The top 5 minimally-invasive procedures in men were botulinum toxin type A, followed by laser skin resurfacing, laser hair removal, soft tissue fillers, and microdermabrasion.

Why might men consider an injectable instead of surgery? Dr. Carruthers asked. “According to the 2016 survey by Dr. Jagdeo and colleagues, it’s to appear more youthful and to appear good for their age.”

From a clinical standpoint, success comes from understanding the subtle differences between treating men and women, she added.

In a 2022 article about optimizing skin tightening in aesthetics in men, Christian A. Albornoz, MD, and colleagues noted that in contrast to women, men “tend to have higher levels of collagen density and greater skin thickness, but these begin to decrease earlier on. They can also more frequently have severe photodamage”.

In another article published in 2018, Terrence Keaney, MD, and colleagues reviewed the objective data available on male aging and aesthetics. They stated that a “communication gap exists for men, as evidenced by the lack of information available online or by word of mouth about injectable treatments” and concluded that “educating men about available aesthetic treatments and about the safety and side effects associated with each treatment, as well as addressing concerns about their treatment results looking natural, are key considerations.”

That sentiment resonates with Dr. Carruthers. Part of the reason why men have not sought cosmetic treatments along with their female partners and friends seeking cosmetic treatments “is that they haven’t had anything in their cup,” she said. “Maybe this is something we need to think about, to try and help men come in and enjoy the positive benefits of aesthetic, noninvasive cosmetic treatments.”

The course was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Wellman Center for Photomedicine.

Dr. Carruthers disclosed that she is a consultant and researcher for Alastin, Appiell, Allergan Aesthetics, Avari Medical, Bonti, Evolus, Fount Bio, Jeune Aesthetics, Merz, and Revance Biopharma.

The Diagnosis: IgA Pemphigus

Histopathology revealed a neutrophilic pustule and vesicle formation underlying the corneal layer (Figure). Direct immunofluorescence (DIF) showed weak positive staining for IgA within the intercellular keratinocyte in the epithelial compartment and a negative pattern with IgG, IgM, C3, and fibrinogen. The patient received a 40-mg intralesional triamcinolone injection and was placed on an oral prednisone 50-mg taper within 5 days. The plaques, bullae, and pustules began to resolve, but the lesions returned 1 day later. Oral prednisone 10 mg daily was initiated for 1 month, which resulted in full resolution of the lesions.

IgA pemphigus is a rare autoimmune disorder characterized by the occurrence of painful pruritic blisters caused by circulating IgA antibodies, which react against keratinocyte cellular components responsible for mediating cell-to-cell adherence.¹ The etiology of IgA pemphigus presently remains elusive, though it has been reported to occur concomitantly with several chronic malignancies and inflammatory conditions. Although its etiology is unknown, IgA pemphigus most commonly is treated with oral dapsone and corticosteroids.²

IgA pemphigus can be divided into 2 primary subtypes: subcorneal pustular dermatosis and intraepidermal neutrophilic dermatosis.^1,3 The former is characterized by intercellular deposition of IgA that reacts to the glycoprotein desmocollin-1 in the upper layer of the epidermis. Intraepidermal neutrophilic dermatosis is distinguished by the presence of autoantibodies against the desmoglein members of the cadherin superfamily of proteins. Additionally, unlike subcorneal pustular dermatosis, intraepidermal neutrophilic dermatosis autoantibody reactivity occurs in the lower epidermis.⁴

The differential includes dermatitis herpetiformis, which is commonly seen on the elbows, knees, and buttocks, with DIF showing IgA deposition at the dermal papillae. Pemphigus foliaceus is distributed on the scalp, face, and trunk, with DIF showing IgG intercellular deposition. Pustular psoriasis presents as erythematous sterile pustules in a more localized annular pattern. Subcorneal pustular dermatosis (Sneddon-Wilkinson disease) has similar clinical and histological findings to IgA pemphigus; however, DIF is negative.

The Diagnosis: IgA Pemphigus

Histopathology revealed a neutrophilic pustule and vesicle formation underlying the corneal layer (Figure). Direct immunofluorescence (DIF) showed weak positive staining for IgA within the intercellular keratinocyte in the epithelial compartment and a negative pattern with IgG, IgM, C3, and fibrinogen. The patient received a 40-mg intralesional triamcinolone injection and was placed on an oral prednisone 50-mg taper within 5 days. The plaques, bullae, and pustules began to resolve, but the lesions returned 1 day later. Oral prednisone 10 mg daily was initiated for 1 month, which resulted in full resolution of the lesions.

IgA pemphigus is a rare autoimmune disorder characterized by the occurrence of painful pruritic blisters caused by circulating IgA antibodies, which react against keratinocyte cellular components responsible for mediating cell-to-cell adherence.¹ The etiology of IgA pemphigus presently remains elusive, though it has been reported to occur concomitantly with several chronic malignancies and inflammatory conditions. Although its etiology is unknown, IgA pemphigus most commonly is treated with oral dapsone and corticosteroids.²

IgA pemphigus can be divided into 2 primary subtypes: subcorneal pustular dermatosis and intraepidermal neutrophilic dermatosis.^1,3 The former is characterized by intercellular deposition of IgA that reacts to the glycoprotein desmocollin-1 in the upper layer of the epidermis. Intraepidermal neutrophilic dermatosis is distinguished by the presence of autoantibodies against the desmoglein members of the cadherin superfamily of proteins. Additionally, unlike subcorneal pustular dermatosis, intraepidermal neutrophilic dermatosis autoantibody reactivity occurs in the lower epidermis.⁴

The differential includes dermatitis herpetiformis, which is commonly seen on the elbows, knees, and buttocks, with DIF showing IgA deposition at the dermal papillae. Pemphigus foliaceus is distributed on the scalp, face, and trunk, with DIF showing IgG intercellular deposition. Pustular psoriasis presents as erythematous sterile pustules in a more localized annular pattern. Subcorneal pustular dermatosis (Sneddon-Wilkinson disease) has similar clinical and histological findings to IgA pemphigus; however, DIF is negative.

The Diagnosis: IgA Pemphigus

Histopathology revealed a neutrophilic pustule and vesicle formation underlying the corneal layer (Figure). Direct immunofluorescence (DIF) showed weak positive staining for IgA within the intercellular keratinocyte in the epithelial compartment and a negative pattern with IgG, IgM, C3, and fibrinogen. The patient received a 40-mg intralesional triamcinolone injection and was placed on an oral prednisone 50-mg taper within 5 days. The plaques, bullae, and pustules began to resolve, but the lesions returned 1 day later. Oral prednisone 10 mg daily was initiated for 1 month, which resulted in full resolution of the lesions.

IgA pemphigus is a rare autoimmune disorder characterized by the occurrence of painful pruritic blisters caused by circulating IgA antibodies, which react against keratinocyte cellular components responsible for mediating cell-to-cell adherence.¹ The etiology of IgA pemphigus presently remains elusive, though it has been reported to occur concomitantly with several chronic malignancies and inflammatory conditions. Although its etiology is unknown, IgA pemphigus most commonly is treated with oral dapsone and corticosteroids.²

IgA pemphigus can be divided into 2 primary subtypes: subcorneal pustular dermatosis and intraepidermal neutrophilic dermatosis.^1,3 The former is characterized by intercellular deposition of IgA that reacts to the glycoprotein desmocollin-1 in the upper layer of the epidermis. Intraepidermal neutrophilic dermatosis is distinguished by the presence of autoantibodies against the desmoglein members of the cadherin superfamily of proteins. Additionally, unlike subcorneal pustular dermatosis, intraepidermal neutrophilic dermatosis autoantibody reactivity occurs in the lower epidermis.⁴

The differential includes dermatitis herpetiformis, which is commonly seen on the elbows, knees, and buttocks, with DIF showing IgA deposition at the dermal papillae. Pemphigus foliaceus is distributed on the scalp, face, and trunk, with DIF showing IgG intercellular deposition. Pustular psoriasis presents as erythematous sterile pustules in a more localized annular pattern. Subcorneal pustular dermatosis (Sneddon-Wilkinson disease) has similar clinical and histological findings to IgA pemphigus; however, DIF is negative.

The effectiveness of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine against HPV types 16 and 18 is highly dependent on the age at which it is given. Prevalence rates have been shown to be significantly lower among girls who are vaccinated at the recommended ages of 9-12 years, compared with those who are vaccinated after their sexual debut, data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) indicate.

“HPV vaccination does not have any therapeutic effect on HPV infections already acquired, which is more likely to explain the difference in prevalence between predebut versus postdebut recipients than a lower immune response [among older recipients],” lead study author Didem Egemen, PhD, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Md., told this news organization in an email.

“Still, among older females, the immune response of the vaccine is likely to still be quite strong, and we would encourage vaccination [of female patients] if unvaccinated, as our paper showed that vaccination post debut will still reduce HPV 16/18 prevalence by half,” she added.

The research letter was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

National sample evaluated

Using data from NHANES, a biennial, cross-sectional sample (cycles 2011 through 2018), the researchers identified female persons who were aged 26 years or younger in 2006, when HPV vaccination was introduced, and who were eligible for routine vaccination or “catch-up” vaccination (given between the ages of 13 and 26 years), as per recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The investigators then compared the prevalence of HPV types 16 and 18 among unvaccinated female patients, female patients who had been vaccinated prior to their sexual debut (predebut group), and those who had been vaccinated after their sexual debut (postdebut group).

They also estimated vaccine uptake among those who were eligible for routine vaccination, as well as the proportion of vaccinated female patients with respect to racial and ethnic subgroups.

In the overall cohort, the prevalence of HPV types 16 and 18 decreased by 6% (95% confidence interval, 4%-7%) in the unvaccinated group to 3% (95% CI, 1%-6%) in the postdebut group and to less than 1% (95% CI, <1%-1%) in the predebut group, Dr. Egemen and colleagues report.

In real percentages, the prevalence of HPV 16 and 18 was 89% lower in the predebut group (P < .001) but only 41% lower in the postdebut group (P = .29) compared with unvaccinated female patients. And compared with female patients who were vaccinated after their sexual debut, the prevalence of HPV 16 and 18 was reduced by 82% among those who had received the vaccine at the recommended ages of 9-12 years (P = .08).

In the current study, Dr. Egeman acknowledged that only 38% of ever-eligible female patients received the vaccine, although the prevalence increased to 56% when only female patients who were eligible for routine vaccination were taken into account. On the other hand, only 21% (95% CI, 14%-28%) of female patients eligible for routine vaccination received their first dose by age 12 years.

Indeed, the mean age on receipt of the first vaccination dose was 14.5 years (95% CI, 14.1-14.8 years), the authors note, and only 59% of girls received their first dose prior to their sexual debut. Additionally, among routine vaccination–eligible girls aged 12 years or younger in 2006, 33% were vaccinated before and 23% after their sexual debut, and the rest were not vaccinated.

Interestingly, differences in the age at which the HPV vaccine was received by race and ethnicity were negligible, the investigators point out.
 

Vaccination rates increasing

Asked to comment on the findings, Rebecca Perkins, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Boston University, Boston Medical Center, pointed out that the investigators evaluated data from 2011 to 2018. “We know that HPV vaccination rates have increased over that period and continue to increase,” she emphasized in an email to this news organization.

Physicians also know that more persons are being vaccinated between the ages of 9 and 12 than was the case at the beginning of this study. “This is good news,” she said, “as it means that more adolescents now in 2022 are benefiting fully from vaccination than they were in 2011,” she added.

At the same time, Dr. Perkins acknowledged that many persons are still missing out on the chance to receive the vaccine on time – which means they are missing out on the chance to prevent cancer.

“Making sure that all adolescents receive vaccination between the ages of 9 to 12 has the potential to prevent up to 40,000 cancers every year in the U.S., [including] the most common HPV-related cancers, such as cervical cancer in women and tongue and tonsillar cancer in men,” Dr. Perkins noted.

“Thus, it’s critical that doctors and parents get the message that you can’t vaccinate too early, only too late,” she emphasized.

Dr. Edgman and Dr. Perkins report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The effectiveness of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine against HPV types 16 and 18 is highly dependent on the age at which it is given. Prevalence rates have been shown to be significantly lower among girls who are vaccinated at the recommended ages of 9-12 years, compared with those who are vaccinated after their sexual debut, data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) indicate.

“HPV vaccination does not have any therapeutic effect on HPV infections already acquired, which is more likely to explain the difference in prevalence between predebut versus postdebut recipients than a lower immune response [among older recipients],” lead study author Didem Egemen, PhD, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Md., told this news organization in an email.

“Still, among older females, the immune response of the vaccine is likely to still be quite strong, and we would encourage vaccination [of female patients] if unvaccinated, as our paper showed that vaccination post debut will still reduce HPV 16/18 prevalence by half,” she added.

The research letter was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

National sample evaluated

Using data from NHANES, a biennial, cross-sectional sample (cycles 2011 through 2018), the researchers identified female persons who were aged 26 years or younger in 2006, when HPV vaccination was introduced, and who were eligible for routine vaccination or “catch-up” vaccination (given between the ages of 13 and 26 years), as per recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The investigators then compared the prevalence of HPV types 16 and 18 among unvaccinated female patients, female patients who had been vaccinated prior to their sexual debut (predebut group), and those who had been vaccinated after their sexual debut (postdebut group).

They also estimated vaccine uptake among those who were eligible for routine vaccination, as well as the proportion of vaccinated female patients with respect to racial and ethnic subgroups.

In the overall cohort, the prevalence of HPV types 16 and 18 decreased by 6% (95% confidence interval, 4%-7%) in the unvaccinated group to 3% (95% CI, 1%-6%) in the postdebut group and to less than 1% (95% CI, <1%-1%) in the predebut group, Dr. Egemen and colleagues report.

In real percentages, the prevalence of HPV 16 and 18 was 89% lower in the predebut group (P < .001) but only 41% lower in the postdebut group (P = .29) compared with unvaccinated female patients. And compared with female patients who were vaccinated after their sexual debut, the prevalence of HPV 16 and 18 was reduced by 82% among those who had received the vaccine at the recommended ages of 9-12 years (P = .08).

In the current study, Dr. Egeman acknowledged that only 38% of ever-eligible female patients received the vaccine, although the prevalence increased to 56% when only female patients who were eligible for routine vaccination were taken into account. On the other hand, only 21% (95% CI, 14%-28%) of female patients eligible for routine vaccination received their first dose by age 12 years.

Indeed, the mean age on receipt of the first vaccination dose was 14.5 years (95% CI, 14.1-14.8 years), the authors note, and only 59% of girls received their first dose prior to their sexual debut. Additionally, among routine vaccination–eligible girls aged 12 years or younger in 2006, 33% were vaccinated before and 23% after their sexual debut, and the rest were not vaccinated.

Interestingly, differences in the age at which the HPV vaccine was received by race and ethnicity were negligible, the investigators point out.
 

Vaccination rates increasing

Asked to comment on the findings, Rebecca Perkins, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Boston University, Boston Medical Center, pointed out that the investigators evaluated data from 2011 to 2018. “We know that HPV vaccination rates have increased over that period and continue to increase,” she emphasized in an email to this news organization.

Physicians also know that more persons are being vaccinated between the ages of 9 and 12 than was the case at the beginning of this study. “This is good news,” she said, “as it means that more adolescents now in 2022 are benefiting fully from vaccination than they were in 2011,” she added.

At the same time, Dr. Perkins acknowledged that many persons are still missing out on the chance to receive the vaccine on time – which means they are missing out on the chance to prevent cancer.

“Making sure that all adolescents receive vaccination between the ages of 9 to 12 has the potential to prevent up to 40,000 cancers every year in the U.S., [including] the most common HPV-related cancers, such as cervical cancer in women and tongue and tonsillar cancer in men,” Dr. Perkins noted.

“Thus, it’s critical that doctors and parents get the message that you can’t vaccinate too early, only too late,” she emphasized.

Dr. Edgman and Dr. Perkins report no relevant financial relationships.

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

The effectiveness of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine against HPV types 16 and 18 is highly dependent on the age at which it is given. Prevalence rates have been shown to be significantly lower among girls who are vaccinated at the recommended ages of 9-12 years, compared with those who are vaccinated after their sexual debut, data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) indicate.

“HPV vaccination does not have any therapeutic effect on HPV infections already acquired, which is more likely to explain the difference in prevalence between predebut versus postdebut recipients than a lower immune response [among older recipients],” lead study author Didem Egemen, PhD, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Md., told this news organization in an email.

“Still, among older females, the immune response of the vaccine is likely to still be quite strong, and we would encourage vaccination [of female patients] if unvaccinated, as our paper showed that vaccination post debut will still reduce HPV 16/18 prevalence by half,” she added.

The research letter was published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

National sample evaluated

Using data from NHANES, a biennial, cross-sectional sample (cycles 2011 through 2018), the researchers identified female persons who were aged 26 years or younger in 2006, when HPV vaccination was introduced, and who were eligible for routine vaccination or “catch-up” vaccination (given between the ages of 13 and 26 years), as per recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The investigators then compared the prevalence of HPV types 16 and 18 among unvaccinated female patients, female patients who had been vaccinated prior to their sexual debut (predebut group), and those who had been vaccinated after their sexual debut (postdebut group).

They also estimated vaccine uptake among those who were eligible for routine vaccination, as well as the proportion of vaccinated female patients with respect to racial and ethnic subgroups.

In the overall cohort, the prevalence of HPV types 16 and 18 decreased by 6% (95% confidence interval, 4%-7%) in the unvaccinated group to 3% (95% CI, 1%-6%) in the postdebut group and to less than 1% (95% CI, <1%-1%) in the predebut group, Dr. Egemen and colleagues report.

In real percentages, the prevalence of HPV 16 and 18 was 89% lower in the predebut group (P < .001) but only 41% lower in the postdebut group (P = .29) compared with unvaccinated female patients. And compared with female patients who were vaccinated after their sexual debut, the prevalence of HPV 16 and 18 was reduced by 82% among those who had received the vaccine at the recommended ages of 9-12 years (P = .08).

In the current study, Dr. Egeman acknowledged that only 38% of ever-eligible female patients received the vaccine, although the prevalence increased to 56% when only female patients who were eligible for routine vaccination were taken into account. On the other hand, only 21% (95% CI, 14%-28%) of female patients eligible for routine vaccination received their first dose by age 12 years.

Indeed, the mean age on receipt of the first vaccination dose was 14.5 years (95% CI, 14.1-14.8 years), the authors note, and only 59% of girls received their first dose prior to their sexual debut. Additionally, among routine vaccination–eligible girls aged 12 years or younger in 2006, 33% were vaccinated before and 23% after their sexual debut, and the rest were not vaccinated.

Interestingly, differences in the age at which the HPV vaccine was received by race and ethnicity were negligible, the investigators point out.
 

Vaccination rates increasing

Asked to comment on the findings, Rebecca Perkins, MD, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Boston University, Boston Medical Center, pointed out that the investigators evaluated data from 2011 to 2018. “We know that HPV vaccination rates have increased over that period and continue to increase,” she emphasized in an email to this news organization.

Physicians also know that more persons are being vaccinated between the ages of 9 and 12 than was the case at the beginning of this study. “This is good news,” she said, “as it means that more adolescents now in 2022 are benefiting fully from vaccination than they were in 2011,” she added.

At the same time, Dr. Perkins acknowledged that many persons are still missing out on the chance to receive the vaccine on time – which means they are missing out on the chance to prevent cancer.

“Making sure that all adolescents receive vaccination between the ages of 9 to 12 has the potential to prevent up to 40,000 cancers every year in the U.S., [including] the most common HPV-related cancers, such as cervical cancer in women and tongue and tonsillar cancer in men,” Dr. Perkins noted.

“Thus, it’s critical that doctors and parents get the message that you can’t vaccinate too early, only too late,” she emphasized.

Dr. Edgman and Dr. Perkins report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Women continue to be underrepresented among the leadership ranks of dermatology training programs, although the gender gap has closed in recent years, according to a recent cross-sectional study.

Although women made up more than half of the dermatology residency program directors (53.5%), associate directors (62.6%), and assistant directors (58.3%) in 2021, those numbers fall short of women’s majority (65% in 2018) among the trainees themselves, Yasmine Abushukur of Oakland University in Rochester, Mich., and associates said in a research letter.

Advancements were “made in gender diversity within academic dermatology from 2016 to 2021, [but] women remain underrepresented, particularly in leadership of dermatopathology and dermatologic surgery fellowships,” the investigators wrote.

Data gathered from 142 dermatology residency programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education show that progress has been made since 2016, at least among program directors (PDs), of whom 48% were women, according to a previous study. Data on associate and assistant PDs from 2016 were not available to Ms. Abushukur and associates.

At the fellowship program level, women made gains as PDs in dermatopathology (34% in 2016 and 41% in 2021) and pediatric dermatology (64% in 2016 and 76% in 2021), but not in dermatologic surgery, where the proportion held at 26% over the study period. “This disparity is reflective of the general trend in surgery and pathology leadership nationally,” the researchers noted.

Taking a couple of steps up the ladder of authority shows that 39% of dermatology chairs were women in 2021, compared with 23% in 2016. A study published in 2016 demonstrated decreased diversity among academic faculty members as faculty rank increased, and “our data mirror this sentiment by demonstrating a majority of women in assistant and associate PD positions, with a minority of women chairs,” they wrote.

The investigators said that they had no conflicts of interest and no outside funding. Ms. Abushukur’s coauthors were from the departments of dermatology at the Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, and Wayne State University, Dearborn, Mich.

Women continue to be underrepresented among the leadership ranks of dermatology training programs, although the gender gap has closed in recent years, according to a recent cross-sectional study.

Although women made up more than half of the dermatology residency program directors (53.5%), associate directors (62.6%), and assistant directors (58.3%) in 2021, those numbers fall short of women’s majority (65% in 2018) among the trainees themselves, Yasmine Abushukur of Oakland University in Rochester, Mich., and associates said in a research letter.

Advancements were “made in gender diversity within academic dermatology from 2016 to 2021, [but] women remain underrepresented, particularly in leadership of dermatopathology and dermatologic surgery fellowships,” the investigators wrote.

Data gathered from 142 dermatology residency programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education show that progress has been made since 2016, at least among program directors (PDs), of whom 48% were women, according to a previous study. Data on associate and assistant PDs from 2016 were not available to Ms. Abushukur and associates.

At the fellowship program level, women made gains as PDs in dermatopathology (34% in 2016 and 41% in 2021) and pediatric dermatology (64% in 2016 and 76% in 2021), but not in dermatologic surgery, where the proportion held at 26% over the study period. “This disparity is reflective of the general trend in surgery and pathology leadership nationally,” the researchers noted.

Taking a couple of steps up the ladder of authority shows that 39% of dermatology chairs were women in 2021, compared with 23% in 2016. A study published in 2016 demonstrated decreased diversity among academic faculty members as faculty rank increased, and “our data mirror this sentiment by demonstrating a majority of women in assistant and associate PD positions, with a minority of women chairs,” they wrote.

The investigators said that they had no conflicts of interest and no outside funding. Ms. Abushukur’s coauthors were from the departments of dermatology at the Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, and Wayne State University, Dearborn, Mich.

Women continue to be underrepresented among the leadership ranks of dermatology training programs, although the gender gap has closed in recent years, according to a recent cross-sectional study.

Although women made up more than half of the dermatology residency program directors (53.5%), associate directors (62.6%), and assistant directors (58.3%) in 2021, those numbers fall short of women’s majority (65% in 2018) among the trainees themselves, Yasmine Abushukur of Oakland University in Rochester, Mich., and associates said in a research letter.

Advancements were “made in gender diversity within academic dermatology from 2016 to 2021, [but] women remain underrepresented, particularly in leadership of dermatopathology and dermatologic surgery fellowships,” the investigators wrote.

Data gathered from 142 dermatology residency programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education show that progress has been made since 2016, at least among program directors (PDs), of whom 48% were women, according to a previous study. Data on associate and assistant PDs from 2016 were not available to Ms. Abushukur and associates.

At the fellowship program level, women made gains as PDs in dermatopathology (34% in 2016 and 41% in 2021) and pediatric dermatology (64% in 2016 and 76% in 2021), but not in dermatologic surgery, where the proportion held at 26% over the study period. “This disparity is reflective of the general trend in surgery and pathology leadership nationally,” the researchers noted.

Taking a couple of steps up the ladder of authority shows that 39% of dermatology chairs were women in 2021, compared with 23% in 2016. A study published in 2016 demonstrated decreased diversity among academic faculty members as faculty rank increased, and “our data mirror this sentiment by demonstrating a majority of women in assistant and associate PD positions, with a minority of women chairs,” they wrote.

The investigators said that they had no conflicts of interest and no outside funding. Ms. Abushukur’s coauthors were from the departments of dermatology at the Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, and Wayne State University, Dearborn, Mich.

Surgical site infections are one of the top causes of postoperative morbidity and death worldwide, but there is little agreement and much debate over the most effective wound dressing to improve outcomes and reduce the health care burden.

Recent clinical trials have indicated that transparent, semiocclusive films have advantages over gauze held by adhesive tape.

But current transparent film bandages may become dislodged during activities such as showering, say authors of a pilot study published in the Journal of Wound Care. Patients may not realize the bandage has been disrupted, which can lead to infection.

The paper describes a novel product called DrySee dressing (DSD), which features a liquid indicator that turns blue around the edges if moisture is present.

“Clinicians, patients, and caregivers are alerted to the loss of dressing integrity and can replace the dressing when any portion of the perimeter changes to a blue [color],” the authors explain. “In addition, the dressing turns blue when the central pad is saturated with fluid, allowing the patient or provider to change the dressing.”

DSD is indicated for wounds that have low levels of exudate.
 

Two transparent film dressings compared

Researchers recruited 20 patients from the general population in Pittsburgh, for a small pilot study to test DSD against a comparator film dressing (3M Tegaderm + Pad). The volunteers received “a small stipend,” according to the paper.

A 1.5-centimeter incision was made in both forearms of each volunteer. The forearms were randomized regarding which got which bandage. Both bandages have been cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as nonsignificant-risk devices.

Volunteers were instructed to wear the dressing and continue their typical activities of daily living.

The average age of the volunteers was 52 years (range, 20-80 years). Among the 20 volunteers, 11 reported no comorbidities, and 45% reported at least one comorbidity.

Most of the volunteers favored DSD over the comparator in a postoperative survey – 75% to 25%, according to the report.

The wear time between the two transparent dressings across all subjects was 1.4 days. There was no difference in wear time, logged by the volunteers, between the two groups.   

There were no infectious complications, the paper states.

The maker, DrySee (Houston), which holds three patents on the product, supported the research with an unrestricted grant.

DrySee CEO Brad Greer told this news organization, “With DrySee, you know when to change your dressing. All other dressings look the same wet, saturated, or dry.”

He said the study confirms what they have seen in practice, adding that the product is unique.

“No one else in the world has this technology,” Mr. Greer said.
 

Surgeons want to see more data

Heather Evans, MD, a general surgeon with the Medical University of South Carolina, MUSC Health, Charleston, who was not involved with the study, praised the color-indicator design and said she liked the bandage’s narrow indication for low-exudate wounds.

She said in an interview, “It’s a lot to put on a layperson to suddenly know how to take care of wounds when you leave the hospital.”

Giving them the confidence that their wound is safe if the blue doesn’t appear “is a really cool concept,” she said.

She said that, although the volunteers included some elderly people and people with conditions such as diabetes that could affect wound healing, the bandage needs to be tested with a bigger trial to see if it is effective outside controlled conditions.

She also said that some occlusive dressings will be more durable and stay on days longer than DSD or the comparator, which may affect the choice for some.

“The average length of dressing time in this study was less than 2 days,” she pointed out.

Jim Rickert, MD, an orthopedic surgeon with Indiana University Health Bedford, who was not involved with the study, agreed that any surgical or wound dressing, including transparent films, can become dislodged, and said, “This type of product has promise but this is a small pilot study. I would want to see results from a trial of actual surgical patients to see if this type of dressing did indeed decrease post-op infections compared to standard dressing materials.”

Not all are convinced either that there is a need to be filled or that DSD will be the right solution.

Therese Duane, MD, a general surgeon with Texas Health Harris Methodist Fort Worth, who was not part of the study, said in an interview that she “has no issues with the current products.”

She added that more information is needed before considering DSD a better solution, including animal studies and use “on very sick patients.”

“Twenty volunteers with cuts on their arm is barely a start for comparison,” she said.

The authors, led by Kristy Breisinger, a research analyst with the SerenaGroup Research Foundation in Cambridge, Mass., acknowledged the limitations, including the small sample size and that the trial was conducted at only one institution. Additionally, the analysis is based on descriptive statistics.

They write that the trial design was chosen “to simulate a real-world setting that is not always achievable in animal studies.”

The research was sponsored by an unrestricted grant from the maker of DSD, DrySee Inc., in Houston.

Mr. Greer is DrySee’s CEO. The authors and Dr. Duane, Dr. Rickert, and Dr. Evans declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Surgical site infections are one of the top causes of postoperative morbidity and death worldwide, but there is little agreement and much debate over the most effective wound dressing to improve outcomes and reduce the health care burden.

Recent clinical trials have indicated that transparent, semiocclusive films have advantages over gauze held by adhesive tape.

But current transparent film bandages may become dislodged during activities such as showering, say authors of a pilot study published in the Journal of Wound Care. Patients may not realize the bandage has been disrupted, which can lead to infection.

The paper describes a novel product called DrySee dressing (DSD), which features a liquid indicator that turns blue around the edges if moisture is present.

“Clinicians, patients, and caregivers are alerted to the loss of dressing integrity and can replace the dressing when any portion of the perimeter changes to a blue [color],” the authors explain. “In addition, the dressing turns blue when the central pad is saturated with fluid, allowing the patient or provider to change the dressing.”

DSD is indicated for wounds that have low levels of exudate.
 

Two transparent film dressings compared

Researchers recruited 20 patients from the general population in Pittsburgh, for a small pilot study to test DSD against a comparator film dressing (3M Tegaderm + Pad). The volunteers received “a small stipend,” according to the paper.

A 1.5-centimeter incision was made in both forearms of each volunteer. The forearms were randomized regarding which got which bandage. Both bandages have been cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as nonsignificant-risk devices.

Volunteers were instructed to wear the dressing and continue their typical activities of daily living.

The average age of the volunteers was 52 years (range, 20-80 years). Among the 20 volunteers, 11 reported no comorbidities, and 45% reported at least one comorbidity.

Most of the volunteers favored DSD over the comparator in a postoperative survey – 75% to 25%, according to the report.

The wear time between the two transparent dressings across all subjects was 1.4 days. There was no difference in wear time, logged by the volunteers, between the two groups.   

There were no infectious complications, the paper states.

The maker, DrySee (Houston), which holds three patents on the product, supported the research with an unrestricted grant.

DrySee CEO Brad Greer told this news organization, “With DrySee, you know when to change your dressing. All other dressings look the same wet, saturated, or dry.”

He said the study confirms what they have seen in practice, adding that the product is unique.

“No one else in the world has this technology,” Mr. Greer said.
 

Surgeons want to see more data

Heather Evans, MD, a general surgeon with the Medical University of South Carolina, MUSC Health, Charleston, who was not involved with the study, praised the color-indicator design and said she liked the bandage’s narrow indication for low-exudate wounds.

She said in an interview, “It’s a lot to put on a layperson to suddenly know how to take care of wounds when you leave the hospital.”

Giving them the confidence that their wound is safe if the blue doesn’t appear “is a really cool concept,” she said.

She said that, although the volunteers included some elderly people and people with conditions such as diabetes that could affect wound healing, the bandage needs to be tested with a bigger trial to see if it is effective outside controlled conditions.

She also said that some occlusive dressings will be more durable and stay on days longer than DSD or the comparator, which may affect the choice for some.

“The average length of dressing time in this study was less than 2 days,” she pointed out.

Jim Rickert, MD, an orthopedic surgeon with Indiana University Health Bedford, who was not involved with the study, agreed that any surgical or wound dressing, including transparent films, can become dislodged, and said, “This type of product has promise but this is a small pilot study. I would want to see results from a trial of actual surgical patients to see if this type of dressing did indeed decrease post-op infections compared to standard dressing materials.”

Not all are convinced either that there is a need to be filled or that DSD will be the right solution.

Therese Duane, MD, a general surgeon with Texas Health Harris Methodist Fort Worth, who was not part of the study, said in an interview that she “has no issues with the current products.”

She added that more information is needed before considering DSD a better solution, including animal studies and use “on very sick patients.”

“Twenty volunteers with cuts on their arm is barely a start for comparison,” she said.

The authors, led by Kristy Breisinger, a research analyst with the SerenaGroup Research Foundation in Cambridge, Mass., acknowledged the limitations, including the small sample size and that the trial was conducted at only one institution. Additionally, the analysis is based on descriptive statistics.

They write that the trial design was chosen “to simulate a real-world setting that is not always achievable in animal studies.”

The research was sponsored by an unrestricted grant from the maker of DSD, DrySee Inc., in Houston.

Mr. Greer is DrySee’s CEO. The authors and Dr. Duane, Dr. Rickert, and Dr. Evans declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Surgical site infections are one of the top causes of postoperative morbidity and death worldwide, but there is little agreement and much debate over the most effective wound dressing to improve outcomes and reduce the health care burden.

Recent clinical trials have indicated that transparent, semiocclusive films have advantages over gauze held by adhesive tape.

But current transparent film bandages may become dislodged during activities such as showering, say authors of a pilot study published in the Journal of Wound Care. Patients may not realize the bandage has been disrupted, which can lead to infection.

The paper describes a novel product called DrySee dressing (DSD), which features a liquid indicator that turns blue around the edges if moisture is present.

“Clinicians, patients, and caregivers are alerted to the loss of dressing integrity and can replace the dressing when any portion of the perimeter changes to a blue [color],” the authors explain. “In addition, the dressing turns blue when the central pad is saturated with fluid, allowing the patient or provider to change the dressing.”

DSD is indicated for wounds that have low levels of exudate.
 

Two transparent film dressings compared

Researchers recruited 20 patients from the general population in Pittsburgh, for a small pilot study to test DSD against a comparator film dressing (3M Tegaderm + Pad). The volunteers received “a small stipend,” according to the paper.

A 1.5-centimeter incision was made in both forearms of each volunteer. The forearms were randomized regarding which got which bandage. Both bandages have been cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as nonsignificant-risk devices.

Volunteers were instructed to wear the dressing and continue their typical activities of daily living.

The average age of the volunteers was 52 years (range, 20-80 years). Among the 20 volunteers, 11 reported no comorbidities, and 45% reported at least one comorbidity.

Most of the volunteers favored DSD over the comparator in a postoperative survey – 75% to 25%, according to the report.

The wear time between the two transparent dressings across all subjects was 1.4 days. There was no difference in wear time, logged by the volunteers, between the two groups.   

There were no infectious complications, the paper states.

The maker, DrySee (Houston), which holds three patents on the product, supported the research with an unrestricted grant.

DrySee CEO Brad Greer told this news organization, “With DrySee, you know when to change your dressing. All other dressings look the same wet, saturated, or dry.”

He said the study confirms what they have seen in practice, adding that the product is unique.

“No one else in the world has this technology,” Mr. Greer said.
 

Surgeons want to see more data

Heather Evans, MD, a general surgeon with the Medical University of South Carolina, MUSC Health, Charleston, who was not involved with the study, praised the color-indicator design and said she liked the bandage’s narrow indication for low-exudate wounds.

She said in an interview, “It’s a lot to put on a layperson to suddenly know how to take care of wounds when you leave the hospital.”

Giving them the confidence that their wound is safe if the blue doesn’t appear “is a really cool concept,” she said.

She said that, although the volunteers included some elderly people and people with conditions such as diabetes that could affect wound healing, the bandage needs to be tested with a bigger trial to see if it is effective outside controlled conditions.

She also said that some occlusive dressings will be more durable and stay on days longer than DSD or the comparator, which may affect the choice for some.

“The average length of dressing time in this study was less than 2 days,” she pointed out.

Jim Rickert, MD, an orthopedic surgeon with Indiana University Health Bedford, who was not involved with the study, agreed that any surgical or wound dressing, including transparent films, can become dislodged, and said, “This type of product has promise but this is a small pilot study. I would want to see results from a trial of actual surgical patients to see if this type of dressing did indeed decrease post-op infections compared to standard dressing materials.”

Not all are convinced either that there is a need to be filled or that DSD will be the right solution.

Therese Duane, MD, a general surgeon with Texas Health Harris Methodist Fort Worth, who was not part of the study, said in an interview that she “has no issues with the current products.”

She added that more information is needed before considering DSD a better solution, including animal studies and use “on very sick patients.”

“Twenty volunteers with cuts on their arm is barely a start for comparison,” she said.

The authors, led by Kristy Breisinger, a research analyst with the SerenaGroup Research Foundation in Cambridge, Mass., acknowledged the limitations, including the small sample size and that the trial was conducted at only one institution. Additionally, the analysis is based on descriptive statistics.

They write that the trial design was chosen “to simulate a real-world setting that is not always achievable in animal studies.”

The research was sponsored by an unrestricted grant from the maker of DSD, DrySee Inc., in Houston.

Mr. Greer is DrySee’s CEO. The authors and Dr. Duane, Dr. Rickert, and Dr. Evans declared no relevant financial relationships.

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

Response-adapted de-escalation of immunotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma may lead to considerable savings for payers – close to $20,000 per patient – compared with standard immunotherapy, an economic analysis found.

“The rising costs of cancer therapies are becoming untenable for both patients and payers, and there is both clinical and economic benefit to finding less expensive treatment alternatives,” Wolfgang Kunz, MD, University Hospital, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, told this news organization.

This economic analysis “highlights that leveraging modern diagnostic capabilities can do just that: Pairing drug regimens with CT-image analysis to optimize dosages can reduce health care costs and improve clinical outcomes,” Dr. Kunz said.

The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

While the use of immunotherapies over the past decade has improved the prognosis for patients with advanced melanoma, these drugs come with a hefty price tag.

One potential way to help reduce costs: de-escalate therapy. The ADAPT-IT trial demonstrated similar progression-free and overall survival among patients who received response-adapted ipilimumab discontinuation and those who received standard of care.

In the current analysis, Dr. Kunz and colleagues wanted to understand whether this response-adapted approach was also cost effective.

The team applied economic modeling to data from the ADAPT-IT trial as well as CheckMate 067, in which patients received standard of care four doses of combination ipilimumab-nivolumab followed by nivolumab monotherapy. In the ADAPT-IT trial, patients also initially received the immunotherapy combination but had CT scans to determine their response after two doses; if they responded, patients discontinued ipilimumab and continued with nivolumab monotherapy.

Overall, ADAPT-IT showed that responders could forgo the additional two doses of ipilimumab plus nivolumab while maintaining similar progression-free survival and overall survival seen at 18 months in the CheckMate 067 trial.

The current economic analysis, based on 41 patients from ADAPT-IT and 314 from CheckMate 067, showed a potential reduction in health care costs of $19,891 per patient with the response-adapted approach.

Response-adapted treatment was the cost-effective option in 94% of simulated scenarios.

When extrapolated to 2019 incidence rates of distant melanoma cases, yearly national savings could reach about $58 million.

“In the relatively small space of immunotherapies in advanced melanoma, we hope this analysis motivates clinicians to consider response-adapted treatment,” Dr. Kunz told this news organization.

“On the larger scale, this analysis serves as a stepping stone to more response-guided treatment protocols,” Dr. Kunz added. “With drug costs rising and imaging capabilities growing, more frequent image-guided adjustments are a perfect fit into the personalized care model.”

When applying the cost savings noted in this analysis across all treated patients, “the economic impact may be profound,” said Joseph Skitzki, MD, surgical oncologist, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., who wasn’t involved in the study. The “financial toxicity of cancer care is increasingly recognized as a potential barrier to optimal outcomes and any measures to mitigate cost may be impactful.”

However, Dr. Skitzki said several caveats need to be considered.

One is that the data included from ADAPT-IT only included 41 patients, compared with 314 patients from CheckMate 067.

“It is possible that a larger real-world study utilizing the ADAPT-IT protocol may not be as favorable in terms of outcomes and could lessen the economic impact of de-escalation, although any form of de-escalation is likely to have a cost benefit,” Dr. Skitzki said in an interview.

A real-world response–adapted de-escalation clinical trial, with an emphasis on costs and a benchmark of similar progression-free and overall survival, should be conducted before the de-escalated option becomes “practice changing,” Dr. Skitzki said.

Jeffrey Weber, MD, PhD, deputy director, Perlmutter Cancer Center, NYU Langone Health, New York, also urged caution in interpreting the results.

“I would not base treatment decisions on a small sampling of 41 patients in the absence of a randomized comparison,” Dr. Weber told this news organization. “Without a proper comparison, I would not advocate using only two doses of ipilimumab-nivolumab to make decisions on treatment.”

Dr. Skitzki added that, while “studies like this one are desperately needed to lessen the economic impact of new and emerging combination immunotherapies,” there is likely also a “disincentive for pharmaceutical companies to conduct this type of research.”

This research had no specific funding. Dr. Kunz and Dr. Skitzki reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Weber disclosed relationships with Merck, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Regeneron, and GSK, among others, and holds equity in Cytomx, Biond, NexImmune, and Immunomax.

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

Response-adapted de-escalation of immunotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma may lead to considerable savings for payers – close to $20,000 per patient – compared with standard immunotherapy, an economic analysis found.

“The rising costs of cancer therapies are becoming untenable for both patients and payers, and there is both clinical and economic benefit to finding less expensive treatment alternatives,” Wolfgang Kunz, MD, University Hospital, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, told this news organization.

This economic analysis “highlights that leveraging modern diagnostic capabilities can do just that: Pairing drug regimens with CT-image analysis to optimize dosages can reduce health care costs and improve clinical outcomes,” Dr. Kunz said.

The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

While the use of immunotherapies over the past decade has improved the prognosis for patients with advanced melanoma, these drugs come with a hefty price tag.

One potential way to help reduce costs: de-escalate therapy. The ADAPT-IT trial demonstrated similar progression-free and overall survival among patients who received response-adapted ipilimumab discontinuation and those who received standard of care.

In the current analysis, Dr. Kunz and colleagues wanted to understand whether this response-adapted approach was also cost effective.

The team applied economic modeling to data from the ADAPT-IT trial as well as CheckMate 067, in which patients received standard of care four doses of combination ipilimumab-nivolumab followed by nivolumab monotherapy. In the ADAPT-IT trial, patients also initially received the immunotherapy combination but had CT scans to determine their response after two doses; if they responded, patients discontinued ipilimumab and continued with nivolumab monotherapy.

Overall, ADAPT-IT showed that responders could forgo the additional two doses of ipilimumab plus nivolumab while maintaining similar progression-free survival and overall survival seen at 18 months in the CheckMate 067 trial.

The current economic analysis, based on 41 patients from ADAPT-IT and 314 from CheckMate 067, showed a potential reduction in health care costs of $19,891 per patient with the response-adapted approach.

Response-adapted treatment was the cost-effective option in 94% of simulated scenarios.

When extrapolated to 2019 incidence rates of distant melanoma cases, yearly national savings could reach about $58 million.

“In the relatively small space of immunotherapies in advanced melanoma, we hope this analysis motivates clinicians to consider response-adapted treatment,” Dr. Kunz told this news organization.

“On the larger scale, this analysis serves as a stepping stone to more response-guided treatment protocols,” Dr. Kunz added. “With drug costs rising and imaging capabilities growing, more frequent image-guided adjustments are a perfect fit into the personalized care model.”

When applying the cost savings noted in this analysis across all treated patients, “the economic impact may be profound,” said Joseph Skitzki, MD, surgical oncologist, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., who wasn’t involved in the study. The “financial toxicity of cancer care is increasingly recognized as a potential barrier to optimal outcomes and any measures to mitigate cost may be impactful.”

However, Dr. Skitzki said several caveats need to be considered.

One is that the data included from ADAPT-IT only included 41 patients, compared with 314 patients from CheckMate 067.

“It is possible that a larger real-world study utilizing the ADAPT-IT protocol may not be as favorable in terms of outcomes and could lessen the economic impact of de-escalation, although any form of de-escalation is likely to have a cost benefit,” Dr. Skitzki said in an interview.

A real-world response–adapted de-escalation clinical trial, with an emphasis on costs and a benchmark of similar progression-free and overall survival, should be conducted before the de-escalated option becomes “practice changing,” Dr. Skitzki said.

Jeffrey Weber, MD, PhD, deputy director, Perlmutter Cancer Center, NYU Langone Health, New York, also urged caution in interpreting the results.

“I would not base treatment decisions on a small sampling of 41 patients in the absence of a randomized comparison,” Dr. Weber told this news organization. “Without a proper comparison, I would not advocate using only two doses of ipilimumab-nivolumab to make decisions on treatment.”

Dr. Skitzki added that, while “studies like this one are desperately needed to lessen the economic impact of new and emerging combination immunotherapies,” there is likely also a “disincentive for pharmaceutical companies to conduct this type of research.”

This research had no specific funding. Dr. Kunz and Dr. Skitzki reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Weber disclosed relationships with Merck, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Regeneron, and GSK, among others, and holds equity in Cytomx, Biond, NexImmune, and Immunomax.

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

Response-adapted de-escalation of immunotherapy in patients with advanced melanoma may lead to considerable savings for payers – close to $20,000 per patient – compared with standard immunotherapy, an economic analysis found.

“The rising costs of cancer therapies are becoming untenable for both patients and payers, and there is both clinical and economic benefit to finding less expensive treatment alternatives,” Wolfgang Kunz, MD, University Hospital, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, told this news organization.

This economic analysis “highlights that leveraging modern diagnostic capabilities can do just that: Pairing drug regimens with CT-image analysis to optimize dosages can reduce health care costs and improve clinical outcomes,” Dr. Kunz said.

The study was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

While the use of immunotherapies over the past decade has improved the prognosis for patients with advanced melanoma, these drugs come with a hefty price tag.

One potential way to help reduce costs: de-escalate therapy. The ADAPT-IT trial demonstrated similar progression-free and overall survival among patients who received response-adapted ipilimumab discontinuation and those who received standard of care.

In the current analysis, Dr. Kunz and colleagues wanted to understand whether this response-adapted approach was also cost effective.

The team applied economic modeling to data from the ADAPT-IT trial as well as CheckMate 067, in which patients received standard of care four doses of combination ipilimumab-nivolumab followed by nivolumab monotherapy. In the ADAPT-IT trial, patients also initially received the immunotherapy combination but had CT scans to determine their response after two doses; if they responded, patients discontinued ipilimumab and continued with nivolumab monotherapy.

Overall, ADAPT-IT showed that responders could forgo the additional two doses of ipilimumab plus nivolumab while maintaining similar progression-free survival and overall survival seen at 18 months in the CheckMate 067 trial.

The current economic analysis, based on 41 patients from ADAPT-IT and 314 from CheckMate 067, showed a potential reduction in health care costs of $19,891 per patient with the response-adapted approach.

Response-adapted treatment was the cost-effective option in 94% of simulated scenarios.

When extrapolated to 2019 incidence rates of distant melanoma cases, yearly national savings could reach about $58 million.

“In the relatively small space of immunotherapies in advanced melanoma, we hope this analysis motivates clinicians to consider response-adapted treatment,” Dr. Kunz told this news organization.

“On the larger scale, this analysis serves as a stepping stone to more response-guided treatment protocols,” Dr. Kunz added. “With drug costs rising and imaging capabilities growing, more frequent image-guided adjustments are a perfect fit into the personalized care model.”

When applying the cost savings noted in this analysis across all treated patients, “the economic impact may be profound,” said Joseph Skitzki, MD, surgical oncologist, Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, N.Y., who wasn’t involved in the study. The “financial toxicity of cancer care is increasingly recognized as a potential barrier to optimal outcomes and any measures to mitigate cost may be impactful.”

However, Dr. Skitzki said several caveats need to be considered.

One is that the data included from ADAPT-IT only included 41 patients, compared with 314 patients from CheckMate 067.

“It is possible that a larger real-world study utilizing the ADAPT-IT protocol may not be as favorable in terms of outcomes and could lessen the economic impact of de-escalation, although any form of de-escalation is likely to have a cost benefit,” Dr. Skitzki said in an interview.

A real-world response–adapted de-escalation clinical trial, with an emphasis on costs and a benchmark of similar progression-free and overall survival, should be conducted before the de-escalated option becomes “practice changing,” Dr. Skitzki said.

Jeffrey Weber, MD, PhD, deputy director, Perlmutter Cancer Center, NYU Langone Health, New York, also urged caution in interpreting the results.

“I would not base treatment decisions on a small sampling of 41 patients in the absence of a randomized comparison,” Dr. Weber told this news organization. “Without a proper comparison, I would not advocate using only two doses of ipilimumab-nivolumab to make decisions on treatment.”

Dr. Skitzki added that, while “studies like this one are desperately needed to lessen the economic impact of new and emerging combination immunotherapies,” there is likely also a “disincentive for pharmaceutical companies to conduct this type of research.”

This research had no specific funding. Dr. Kunz and Dr. Skitzki reported no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Weber disclosed relationships with Merck, Genentech, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Regeneron, and GSK, among others, and holds equity in Cytomx, Biond, NexImmune, and Immunomax.

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