Melanoma

Cosentyx

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation announces US Food and Drug Administration approval of 2 new indications for Cosentyx (secukinumab): to treat patients with active ankylosing spondylitis and active psoriatic arthritis. Cosentyx is a human monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to IL-17A and inhibits its interaction with the IL-17 receptor. Research suggests that IL-17A may play an important role in driving the body’s immune response in psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis. Cosentyx was approved in January 2015 for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adult patients who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy. For more information, visit www.cosentyx.com.

Emverm

Impax Laboratories, Inc, receives US Food and Drug Administration approval for the supplemental new drug application of Emverm (mebendazole) 100-mg chewable tablets for the treatment of pinworm and certain worm infections. Emverm is indicated for treatment of pinworm, whipworm, common roundworm, common hookworm, and American hookworm in single or mixed infections. Emverm is expected to become available early in the second quarter of 2016. For more information, visit www.impaxlabs.com.

Keytruda

Merck & Co, Inc, announces US Food and Drug Administration approval of an expanded indication for Keytruda (pembrolizumab) that includes the first-line treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. Keytruda is indicated in the United States at a dose of 2 mg/kg administered as an intravenous infusion over 30 minutes every 3 weeks. Keytruda is an anti–programmed death receptor-1 therapy that works by increasing the ability of the body’s immune system to help detect and fight tumor cells. For more information, visit www.keytruda.com.

Opdivo + Yervoy Regimen

The US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval of nivolumab (Opdivo) in combination with ipilimumab (Yervoy) for the treatment of patients with BRAF V600 wild-type unresectable or metastatic melanoma. An international, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, active-controlled trial in patients who were previously untreated for unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600 wild-type melanoma demonstrated an increase in the objective response rate, prolonged response durations, and improvement in progression-free survival. When used in combination with ipilimumab, the recommended dose and schedule is nivolumab 1 mg/kg administered as an intravenous infusion over 60 minutes, followed by ipilimumab on the same day every 3 weeks for 4 doses. The recommended subsequent dose of nivolumab, as a single agent, is 3 mg/kg as an intravenous infusion over 60 minutes every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. For more information, visit www.opdivoyervoyhcp.com.

TriAcnéal Day Mattifying Lotion and Night Smoothing Lotion

Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmetique USA introduces 2 TriAcnéal lotions in the Avène line for the treatment and prevention of acne. TriAcnéal Day Mattifying Lotion provides hydrating and mattifying care. It is gentle enough for daily use and can be used alone or in combination with topical acne prescriptions. A trio of ingredients target acne: PCC enzyme (consisting of papain, sodium alginate, caprylyl glycol, and hexanediol) for exfoliation to counteract the formation of new comedones, Diolényl (consisting of caprylyl glycol linseedate and potassium sorbate)to treat existing blemishes and prevent new lesions, and glyceryl laurate to reduce oil production. TriAcnéal Night Smoothing Lotion works to reduce the appearance of acne scars and provides moisturization and redness-reduction benefits. The nighttime formula contains PCC enzyme and Diolényl as well as retinaldehyde to diminish visible signs of aging. For more information, visit www.aveneusa.com.

If you would like your product included in Product News, please e-mail a press release to the Editorial Office at [email protected].

Cosentyx

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation announces US Food and Drug Administration approval of 2 new indications for Cosentyx (secukinumab): to treat patients with active ankylosing spondylitis and active psoriatic arthritis. Cosentyx is a human monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to IL-17A and inhibits its interaction with the IL-17 receptor. Research suggests that IL-17A may play an important role in driving the body’s immune response in psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis. Cosentyx was approved in January 2015 for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adult patients who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy. For more information, visit www.cosentyx.com.

Emverm

Impax Laboratories, Inc, receives US Food and Drug Administration approval for the supplemental new drug application of Emverm (mebendazole) 100-mg chewable tablets for the treatment of pinworm and certain worm infections. Emverm is indicated for treatment of pinworm, whipworm, common roundworm, common hookworm, and American hookworm in single or mixed infections. Emverm is expected to become available early in the second quarter of 2016. For more information, visit www.impaxlabs.com.

Keytruda

Merck & Co, Inc, announces US Food and Drug Administration approval of an expanded indication for Keytruda (pembrolizumab) that includes the first-line treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. Keytruda is indicated in the United States at a dose of 2 mg/kg administered as an intravenous infusion over 30 minutes every 3 weeks. Keytruda is an anti–programmed death receptor-1 therapy that works by increasing the ability of the body’s immune system to help detect and fight tumor cells. For more information, visit www.keytruda.com.

Opdivo + Yervoy Regimen

The US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval of nivolumab (Opdivo) in combination with ipilimumab (Yervoy) for the treatment of patients with BRAF V600 wild-type unresectable or metastatic melanoma. An international, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, active-controlled trial in patients who were previously untreated for unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600 wild-type melanoma demonstrated an increase in the objective response rate, prolonged response durations, and improvement in progression-free survival. When used in combination with ipilimumab, the recommended dose and schedule is nivolumab 1 mg/kg administered as an intravenous infusion over 60 minutes, followed by ipilimumab on the same day every 3 weeks for 4 doses. The recommended subsequent dose of nivolumab, as a single agent, is 3 mg/kg as an intravenous infusion over 60 minutes every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. For more information, visit www.opdivoyervoyhcp.com.

TriAcnéal Day Mattifying Lotion and Night Smoothing Lotion

Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmetique USA introduces 2 TriAcnéal lotions in the Avène line for the treatment and prevention of acne. TriAcnéal Day Mattifying Lotion provides hydrating and mattifying care. It is gentle enough for daily use and can be used alone or in combination with topical acne prescriptions. A trio of ingredients target acne: PCC enzyme (consisting of papain, sodium alginate, caprylyl glycol, and hexanediol) for exfoliation to counteract the formation of new comedones, Diolényl (consisting of caprylyl glycol linseedate and potassium sorbate)to treat existing blemishes and prevent new lesions, and glyceryl laurate to reduce oil production. TriAcnéal Night Smoothing Lotion works to reduce the appearance of acne scars and provides moisturization and redness-reduction benefits. The nighttime formula contains PCC enzyme and Diolényl as well as retinaldehyde to diminish visible signs of aging. For more information, visit www.aveneusa.com.

If you would like your product included in Product News, please e-mail a press release to the Editorial Office at [email protected].

Cosentyx

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation announces US Food and Drug Administration approval of 2 new indications for Cosentyx (secukinumab): to treat patients with active ankylosing spondylitis and active psoriatic arthritis. Cosentyx is a human monoclonal antibody that selectively binds to IL-17A and inhibits its interaction with the IL-17 receptor. Research suggests that IL-17A may play an important role in driving the body’s immune response in psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis. Cosentyx was approved in January 2015 for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adult patients who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy. For more information, visit www.cosentyx.com.

Emverm

Impax Laboratories, Inc, receives US Food and Drug Administration approval for the supplemental new drug application of Emverm (mebendazole) 100-mg chewable tablets for the treatment of pinworm and certain worm infections. Emverm is indicated for treatment of pinworm, whipworm, common roundworm, common hookworm, and American hookworm in single or mixed infections. Emverm is expected to become available early in the second quarter of 2016. For more information, visit www.impaxlabs.com.

Keytruda

Merck & Co, Inc, announces US Food and Drug Administration approval of an expanded indication for Keytruda (pembrolizumab) that includes the first-line treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. Keytruda is indicated in the United States at a dose of 2 mg/kg administered as an intravenous infusion over 30 minutes every 3 weeks. Keytruda is an anti–programmed death receptor-1 therapy that works by increasing the ability of the body’s immune system to help detect and fight tumor cells. For more information, visit www.keytruda.com.

Opdivo + Yervoy Regimen

The US Food and Drug Administration has granted accelerated approval of nivolumab (Opdivo) in combination with ipilimumab (Yervoy) for the treatment of patients with BRAF V600 wild-type unresectable or metastatic melanoma. An international, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, active-controlled trial in patients who were previously untreated for unresectable or metastatic BRAF V600 wild-type melanoma demonstrated an increase in the objective response rate, prolonged response durations, and improvement in progression-free survival. When used in combination with ipilimumab, the recommended dose and schedule is nivolumab 1 mg/kg administered as an intravenous infusion over 60 minutes, followed by ipilimumab on the same day every 3 weeks for 4 doses. The recommended subsequent dose of nivolumab, as a single agent, is 3 mg/kg as an intravenous infusion over 60 minutes every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. For more information, visit www.opdivoyervoyhcp.com.

TriAcnéal Day Mattifying Lotion and Night Smoothing Lotion

Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmetique USA introduces 2 TriAcnéal lotions in the Avène line for the treatment and prevention of acne. TriAcnéal Day Mattifying Lotion provides hydrating and mattifying care. It is gentle enough for daily use and can be used alone or in combination with topical acne prescriptions. A trio of ingredients target acne: PCC enzyme (consisting of papain, sodium alginate, caprylyl glycol, and hexanediol) for exfoliation to counteract the formation of new comedones, Diolényl (consisting of caprylyl glycol linseedate and potassium sorbate)to treat existing blemishes and prevent new lesions, and glyceryl laurate to reduce oil production. TriAcnéal Night Smoothing Lotion works to reduce the appearance of acne scars and provides moisturization and redness-reduction benefits. The nighttime formula contains PCC enzyme and Diolényl as well as retinaldehyde to diminish visible signs of aging. For more information, visit www.aveneusa.com.

If you would like your product included in Product News, please e-mail a press release to the Editorial Office at [email protected].

It is now common for patients to arrive in a physician office and never see the physician. Instead, patients are seen by so-called physician extenders. As our population ages, the need for medical care continues to grow beyond the capacity of the 900,000 US physicians that provide required services, particularly in the first level (primary care). The response to the physician shortage has entailed a variety of strategies. There has been a major immigration of foreign physicians, particularly from India; US medical schools have been encouraged to increase enrollment; and new medical schools have been inaugurated. Physicians have been pushed to adopt electronic medical records to permit increased throughput of patients in office practices. These multiple approaches have had an effect, though sometimes the results are undesirable. For example, complicated computer programs often detract from the physician-patient relationship.

One of the early solutions offered to deal with the doctor shortage in primary care was the concept of physician extenders (PEs), also called mid-level practitioners, who are professionals trained to take on a number of the simpler tasks performed by physicians. There are 2 basic classes of PEs: nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Nurse practitioners are originally trained to perform nursing but then undertake a course of study including scientific courses and clinical exposure to various parts of medicine. Physician assistants receive similar training. The duration of training for PEs usually is 18 to 24 months, whereas physicians attend medical school for 4 years. Unlike physicians, mid-level practitioners do not enter physician postgraduate residency training programs, which last many years.

The original concept was that PEs would work side by side with physicians who would supervise the care provided by the PEs. This team concept was designed to free physicians from the more mundane aspects of medical care and allow them to focus on the more challenging diagnostic and therapeutic issues presented by individual patients. In an era in which the burden of documentation has become increasingly onerous, the assistance of paraprofessionals can spare physicians the entry of redundant details in electronic databases that do not contribute to patient welfare.

However, research suggests that the concept of mid-level providers undertaking first-level care side by side with physicians has diverged from the original goal. An article by Coldiron and Ratnarathorn (JAMA Dermatol. 2014;150:1153-1159) studied Medicare billing data. The authors discovered that a variety of activities, many with higher reimbursement than primary care, were billed directly by PEs without apparent physician involvement, including a large number of complex invasive procedures, more than half in dermatology. Their article focused on dermatologic procedures, such as the destruction of skin cancers and advanced surgical repairs, but they listed many other procedures that are typically in the domain of highly trained physicians, including radiologic interpretations such as mammography and joint injections such as spinal injections. The data they presented were substantiated by publications in the medical literature suggesting that mid-level providers at certain hospitals even perform heart catheterizations and gastrointestinal endoscopies.

There have been no apologies for the unsupervised conduct of physician activities by nonphysicians. On the contrary, many PEs claim to be as well trained and proficient as medical doctors. Coldiron and Ratnarathorn argued otherwise. They pointed out that physicians receive an average of 10,000 hours of training compared to 2000 hours for mid-level practitioners, and they raised concerns about misdiagnoses, complications, and unnecessary procedures performed by PEs without supervision. In an editorial, Jalian and Avram (JAMA Dermatol. 2014;150:1149-1151) pointed out that a disproportionate number of cases of lawsuits for laser-induced injuries are related to performance by nonphysicians.

The pressures to allow nonphysicians to practice medicine independently are increasing. There is a shortage of physicians, especially in states such as Massachusetts that have substantial governmental limitation of physician reimbursement. In Massachusetts, regulations encourage mid-level practitioners to practice without physician supervision and even call themselves “doctors.” Furthermore, hospitals have faced residency funding cuts by Medicare and have had regulatory limitation of work hours by medical doctors in residency training. As a result, many institutions have turned to PEs to perform procedures that are typically performed by medical doctors.

Perhaps the greatest pressure favoring use of nonphysicians is financial. Mid-level practitioners receive lower salaries, typically 45% less, than medical doctors. In an era in which lowering costs has supplanted the goal of offering the best medical care possible, the attraction of replacement of a physician by a professional with less training becomes irresistible. It also is of concern that many physicians ignore the requirement to supervise the work of mid-level practitioners to maximize profit. Physicians often hire a mid-level provider rather than finding another physician to partner in their practice. Patients referred to a dermatologist often are seen by a PE and never even see the physician.

The concept of PEs working in a team with physicians remains an excellent approach to remedying the shortage of medical doctors, but we need to return to the original plan. Physician extenders should perform primary care rather than complex and lucrative subspecialties. There must be adequate supervision and definitely participation by physicians in rendering care.

All of the authors in the articles cited argue for greater regulation of unsupervised PEs to prevent performance of procedures where they lack expertise. Although the regulatory approach is sensible, it is more important to ensure that patients choose who gives them their medical care. They should not be obligated to see mid-level practitioners if they want to see a medical doctor. Above all, patients must be informed of the qualifications of those who provide their medical care. They should not be blindsided when they arrive for an appointment with their physician and find themselves shunted to a PE. We must not allow financial considerations to override the integrity of the medical care process.

What do you think is the optimal and safest role for PEs in a dermatology practice?

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

It is now common for patients to arrive in a physician office and never see the physician. Instead, patients are seen by so-called physician extenders. As our population ages, the need for medical care continues to grow beyond the capacity of the 900,000 US physicians that provide required services, particularly in the first level (primary care). The response to the physician shortage has entailed a variety of strategies. There has been a major immigration of foreign physicians, particularly from India; US medical schools have been encouraged to increase enrollment; and new medical schools have been inaugurated. Physicians have been pushed to adopt electronic medical records to permit increased throughput of patients in office practices. These multiple approaches have had an effect, though sometimes the results are undesirable. For example, complicated computer programs often detract from the physician-patient relationship.

One of the early solutions offered to deal with the doctor shortage in primary care was the concept of physician extenders (PEs), also called mid-level practitioners, who are professionals trained to take on a number of the simpler tasks performed by physicians. There are 2 basic classes of PEs: nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Nurse practitioners are originally trained to perform nursing but then undertake a course of study including scientific courses and clinical exposure to various parts of medicine. Physician assistants receive similar training. The duration of training for PEs usually is 18 to 24 months, whereas physicians attend medical school for 4 years. Unlike physicians, mid-level practitioners do not enter physician postgraduate residency training programs, which last many years.

The original concept was that PEs would work side by side with physicians who would supervise the care provided by the PEs. This team concept was designed to free physicians from the more mundane aspects of medical care and allow them to focus on the more challenging diagnostic and therapeutic issues presented by individual patients. In an era in which the burden of documentation has become increasingly onerous, the assistance of paraprofessionals can spare physicians the entry of redundant details in electronic databases that do not contribute to patient welfare.

However, research suggests that the concept of mid-level providers undertaking first-level care side by side with physicians has diverged from the original goal. An article by Coldiron and Ratnarathorn (JAMA Dermatol. 2014;150:1153-1159) studied Medicare billing data. The authors discovered that a variety of activities, many with higher reimbursement than primary care, were billed directly by PEs without apparent physician involvement, including a large number of complex invasive procedures, more than half in dermatology. Their article focused on dermatologic procedures, such as the destruction of skin cancers and advanced surgical repairs, but they listed many other procedures that are typically in the domain of highly trained physicians, including radiologic interpretations such as mammography and joint injections such as spinal injections. The data they presented were substantiated by publications in the medical literature suggesting that mid-level providers at certain hospitals even perform heart catheterizations and gastrointestinal endoscopies.

There have been no apologies for the unsupervised conduct of physician activities by nonphysicians. On the contrary, many PEs claim to be as well trained and proficient as medical doctors. Coldiron and Ratnarathorn argued otherwise. They pointed out that physicians receive an average of 10,000 hours of training compared to 2000 hours for mid-level practitioners, and they raised concerns about misdiagnoses, complications, and unnecessary procedures performed by PEs without supervision. In an editorial, Jalian and Avram (JAMA Dermatol. 2014;150:1149-1151) pointed out that a disproportionate number of cases of lawsuits for laser-induced injuries are related to performance by nonphysicians.

The pressures to allow nonphysicians to practice medicine independently are increasing. There is a shortage of physicians, especially in states such as Massachusetts that have substantial governmental limitation of physician reimbursement. In Massachusetts, regulations encourage mid-level practitioners to practice without physician supervision and even call themselves “doctors.” Furthermore, hospitals have faced residency funding cuts by Medicare and have had regulatory limitation of work hours by medical doctors in residency training. As a result, many institutions have turned to PEs to perform procedures that are typically performed by medical doctors.

Perhaps the greatest pressure favoring use of nonphysicians is financial. Mid-level practitioners receive lower salaries, typically 45% less, than medical doctors. In an era in which lowering costs has supplanted the goal of offering the best medical care possible, the attraction of replacement of a physician by a professional with less training becomes irresistible. It also is of concern that many physicians ignore the requirement to supervise the work of mid-level practitioners to maximize profit. Physicians often hire a mid-level provider rather than finding another physician to partner in their practice. Patients referred to a dermatologist often are seen by a PE and never even see the physician.

The concept of PEs working in a team with physicians remains an excellent approach to remedying the shortage of medical doctors, but we need to return to the original plan. Physician extenders should perform primary care rather than complex and lucrative subspecialties. There must be adequate supervision and definitely participation by physicians in rendering care.

All of the authors in the articles cited argue for greater regulation of unsupervised PEs to prevent performance of procedures where they lack expertise. Although the regulatory approach is sensible, it is more important to ensure that patients choose who gives them their medical care. They should not be obligated to see mid-level practitioners if they want to see a medical doctor. Above all, patients must be informed of the qualifications of those who provide their medical care. They should not be blindsided when they arrive for an appointment with their physician and find themselves shunted to a PE. We must not allow financial considerations to override the integrity of the medical care process.

What do you think is the optimal and safest role for PEs in a dermatology practice?

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

It is now common for patients to arrive in a physician office and never see the physician. Instead, patients are seen by so-called physician extenders. As our population ages, the need for medical care continues to grow beyond the capacity of the 900,000 US physicians that provide required services, particularly in the first level (primary care). The response to the physician shortage has entailed a variety of strategies. There has been a major immigration of foreign physicians, particularly from India; US medical schools have been encouraged to increase enrollment; and new medical schools have been inaugurated. Physicians have been pushed to adopt electronic medical records to permit increased throughput of patients in office practices. These multiple approaches have had an effect, though sometimes the results are undesirable. For example, complicated computer programs often detract from the physician-patient relationship.

One of the early solutions offered to deal with the doctor shortage in primary care was the concept of physician extenders (PEs), also called mid-level practitioners, who are professionals trained to take on a number of the simpler tasks performed by physicians. There are 2 basic classes of PEs: nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Nurse practitioners are originally trained to perform nursing but then undertake a course of study including scientific courses and clinical exposure to various parts of medicine. Physician assistants receive similar training. The duration of training for PEs usually is 18 to 24 months, whereas physicians attend medical school for 4 years. Unlike physicians, mid-level practitioners do not enter physician postgraduate residency training programs, which last many years.

The original concept was that PEs would work side by side with physicians who would supervise the care provided by the PEs. This team concept was designed to free physicians from the more mundane aspects of medical care and allow them to focus on the more challenging diagnostic and therapeutic issues presented by individual patients. In an era in which the burden of documentation has become increasingly onerous, the assistance of paraprofessionals can spare physicians the entry of redundant details in electronic databases that do not contribute to patient welfare.

However, research suggests that the concept of mid-level providers undertaking first-level care side by side with physicians has diverged from the original goal. An article by Coldiron and Ratnarathorn (JAMA Dermatol. 2014;150:1153-1159) studied Medicare billing data. The authors discovered that a variety of activities, many with higher reimbursement than primary care, were billed directly by PEs without apparent physician involvement, including a large number of complex invasive procedures, more than half in dermatology. Their article focused on dermatologic procedures, such as the destruction of skin cancers and advanced surgical repairs, but they listed many other procedures that are typically in the domain of highly trained physicians, including radiologic interpretations such as mammography and joint injections such as spinal injections. The data they presented were substantiated by publications in the medical literature suggesting that mid-level providers at certain hospitals even perform heart catheterizations and gastrointestinal endoscopies.

There have been no apologies for the unsupervised conduct of physician activities by nonphysicians. On the contrary, many PEs claim to be as well trained and proficient as medical doctors. Coldiron and Ratnarathorn argued otherwise. They pointed out that physicians receive an average of 10,000 hours of training compared to 2000 hours for mid-level practitioners, and they raised concerns about misdiagnoses, complications, and unnecessary procedures performed by PEs without supervision. In an editorial, Jalian and Avram (JAMA Dermatol. 2014;150:1149-1151) pointed out that a disproportionate number of cases of lawsuits for laser-induced injuries are related to performance by nonphysicians.

The pressures to allow nonphysicians to practice medicine independently are increasing. There is a shortage of physicians, especially in states such as Massachusetts that have substantial governmental limitation of physician reimbursement. In Massachusetts, regulations encourage mid-level practitioners to practice without physician supervision and even call themselves “doctors.” Furthermore, hospitals have faced residency funding cuts by Medicare and have had regulatory limitation of work hours by medical doctors in residency training. As a result, many institutions have turned to PEs to perform procedures that are typically performed by medical doctors.

Perhaps the greatest pressure favoring use of nonphysicians is financial. Mid-level practitioners receive lower salaries, typically 45% less, than medical doctors. In an era in which lowering costs has supplanted the goal of offering the best medical care possible, the attraction of replacement of a physician by a professional with less training becomes irresistible. It also is of concern that many physicians ignore the requirement to supervise the work of mid-level practitioners to maximize profit. Physicians often hire a mid-level provider rather than finding another physician to partner in their practice. Patients referred to a dermatologist often are seen by a PE and never even see the physician.

The concept of PEs working in a team with physicians remains an excellent approach to remedying the shortage of medical doctors, but we need to return to the original plan. Physician extenders should perform primary care rather than complex and lucrative subspecialties. There must be adequate supervision and definitely participation by physicians in rendering care.

All of the authors in the articles cited argue for greater regulation of unsupervised PEs to prevent performance of procedures where they lack expertise. Although the regulatory approach is sensible, it is more important to ensure that patients choose who gives them their medical care. They should not be obligated to see mid-level practitioners if they want to see a medical doctor. Above all, patients must be informed of the qualifications of those who provide their medical care. They should not be blindsided when they arrive for an appointment with their physician and find themselves shunted to a PE. We must not allow financial considerations to override the integrity of the medical care process.

What do you think is the optimal and safest role for PEs in a dermatology practice?

We want to know your views! Tell us what you think.

People with atopic dermatitis do not appear to be at greater risk for actinic keratosis or basal cell and squamous cell cancer, according to a recent population-based, cross-sectional study.

“This is the first study to examine the association between atopic dermatitis and actinic keratosis [AK]. Our findings suggest that within a population-based sample, atopic dermatitis patients do not have more AKs than the rest of the population. Patients with atopic dermatitis were not found to have more AKs or keratotic cancers [basal or squamous cell cancers]. Moreover, individuals with atopic dermatitis seem to be less likely to develop multiple AKs,” said Dr. Enes Hajdarbegovic and his associates of the Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

©Dr.-Strangelove/thinkstockphotos.com

The study is part of an ongoing, prospective, Dutch population-based cohort study that follows people in a district of Rotterdam since 1990. There are now 14,926 participants in the database. The current study included 4,375 participants who had undergone full body skin examinations; 56% of patients were female, and the mean age was 68 years (Br J Dermatol. 2016 Jan 29. doi: 10.1111/bjd.14423).

Twenty-four percent had 1 or more AKs; 57% had 1-3 of these lesions; 23% had 4-9, and 20% had more than 10. The mean age of participants with AK was significantly higher, compared with those without AK (73 years vs. 66 years; P less than .01).

Of the 4,375 participants screened, 6.3% met the diagnostic criteria for atopic dermatitis. A lower proportion of those with atopic dermatitis had AK: 16% vs. 24%, respectively (P = .002). In a multinomial model, atopic dermatitis patients were 78% less likely to have 10 or more AKs than were those without atopic dermatitis. No effect of atopic dermatitis was found on basal cell cancer (adjusted odds ratio, 0.71) and squamous cell cancer (adjusted OR, 1.54).

The authors explained that it is already known that patients with severe atopic dermatitis exposed to ultraviolet light and immunosuppressants are at increased risk of keratinocyte malignancies. This study shows that a community-dwelling person with moderate atopic dermatitis does not develop more AKs or keratinocyte cancers.

The investigators said they had no relevant financial disclosures.

People with atopic dermatitis do not appear to be at greater risk for actinic keratosis or basal cell and squamous cell cancer, according to a recent population-based, cross-sectional study.

“This is the first study to examine the association between atopic dermatitis and actinic keratosis [AK]. Our findings suggest that within a population-based sample, atopic dermatitis patients do not have more AKs than the rest of the population. Patients with atopic dermatitis were not found to have more AKs or keratotic cancers [basal or squamous cell cancers]. Moreover, individuals with atopic dermatitis seem to be less likely to develop multiple AKs,” said Dr. Enes Hajdarbegovic and his associates of the Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

©Dr.-Strangelove/thinkstockphotos.com

The study is part of an ongoing, prospective, Dutch population-based cohort study that follows people in a district of Rotterdam since 1990. There are now 14,926 participants in the database. The current study included 4,375 participants who had undergone full body skin examinations; 56% of patients were female, and the mean age was 68 years (Br J Dermatol. 2016 Jan 29. doi: 10.1111/bjd.14423).

Twenty-four percent had 1 or more AKs; 57% had 1-3 of these lesions; 23% had 4-9, and 20% had more than 10. The mean age of participants with AK was significantly higher, compared with those without AK (73 years vs. 66 years; P less than .01).

Of the 4,375 participants screened, 6.3% met the diagnostic criteria for atopic dermatitis. A lower proportion of those with atopic dermatitis had AK: 16% vs. 24%, respectively (P = .002). In a multinomial model, atopic dermatitis patients were 78% less likely to have 10 or more AKs than were those without atopic dermatitis. No effect of atopic dermatitis was found on basal cell cancer (adjusted odds ratio, 0.71) and squamous cell cancer (adjusted OR, 1.54).

The authors explained that it is already known that patients with severe atopic dermatitis exposed to ultraviolet light and immunosuppressants are at increased risk of keratinocyte malignancies. This study shows that a community-dwelling person with moderate atopic dermatitis does not develop more AKs or keratinocyte cancers.

The investigators said they had no relevant financial disclosures.

People with atopic dermatitis do not appear to be at greater risk for actinic keratosis or basal cell and squamous cell cancer, according to a recent population-based, cross-sectional study.

“This is the first study to examine the association between atopic dermatitis and actinic keratosis [AK]. Our findings suggest that within a population-based sample, atopic dermatitis patients do not have more AKs than the rest of the population. Patients with atopic dermatitis were not found to have more AKs or keratotic cancers [basal or squamous cell cancers]. Moreover, individuals with atopic dermatitis seem to be less likely to develop multiple AKs,” said Dr. Enes Hajdarbegovic and his associates of the Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

©Dr.-Strangelove/thinkstockphotos.com

The study is part of an ongoing, prospective, Dutch population-based cohort study that follows people in a district of Rotterdam since 1990. There are now 14,926 participants in the database. The current study included 4,375 participants who had undergone full body skin examinations; 56% of patients were female, and the mean age was 68 years (Br J Dermatol. 2016 Jan 29. doi: 10.1111/bjd.14423).

Twenty-four percent had 1 or more AKs; 57% had 1-3 of these lesions; 23% had 4-9, and 20% had more than 10. The mean age of participants with AK was significantly higher, compared with those without AK (73 years vs. 66 years; P less than .01).

Of the 4,375 participants screened, 6.3% met the diagnostic criteria for atopic dermatitis. A lower proportion of those with atopic dermatitis had AK: 16% vs. 24%, respectively (P = .002). In a multinomial model, atopic dermatitis patients were 78% less likely to have 10 or more AKs than were those without atopic dermatitis. No effect of atopic dermatitis was found on basal cell cancer (adjusted odds ratio, 0.71) and squamous cell cancer (adjusted OR, 1.54).

The authors explained that it is already known that patients with severe atopic dermatitis exposed to ultraviolet light and immunosuppressants are at increased risk of keratinocyte malignancies. This study shows that a community-dwelling person with moderate atopic dermatitis does not develop more AKs or keratinocyte cancers.

The investigators said they had no relevant financial disclosures.