This month’s news from across the specialty
What’s hot
March 1, 2025
In this monthly column, members of the DermWorld Editorial Advisory Workgroup identify exciting news from across the specialty.
“Greatest Greetings of Todays Dr. Carroll! Taking this opportunity, we would like to cordially invite you to contribute a comprehensive review or a research article before 31 January 2025. Due to the project arrangement, your quick reply within one week is most appreciated. We look forward to hearing from you. – Kind regards, Dr. Wanna Maykadalla, Section Managing Editor”
We have all received flattering emails from predatory journals soliciting our manuscripts for expedited publications. These emails represent the eroding integrity within the ethical exchange of peer-reviewed data to promote excellence in clinical practice. The hazards of predatory journals were highlighted in a simultaneous joint publication of an editorial by the editors and members of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Predatory journals create journal names that mimic reputable institutions and seek to profit from charging publication fees without providing the essential functions of medical journals including ethical review and archival publications. They cite an estimate of 15,000 predatory journals as of 2021. In addition to the financial burden to individual authors who may pay for publications that never get published, the ICMJE warns of potential professional consequences for authors who engage predatory journals in publication or citation. Corrective action against these corrupt entities is limited by the ease with which these fraudsters can rebrand to a new falsified journal name. The ICMJE offered several recommendations. Talk with reference librarians, mentors, and colleagues to confirm the provenance of journals. Consider the resources provided by the NIH and FTC to help distinguish reputable journals from predatory journals. Additionally, there is a checklist that can help individuals review unfamiliar journals. Awareness is our strongest weapon against these flimflammers.
DermWorld Insights & Inquiries
The recent rise in social media marketing of at-home skin care light devices has generated significant patient interest, particularly as many are advertised by dermatologists. LED masks have become especially prominent in the at-home treatment space with their claims of producing results beyond the abilities of topical products. Blue light aims to target bacterial growth associated with acne, while red light — with its longer wavelength — alleges collagenogenesis and anti-inflammatory effects.
However, like many in the direct-to-consumer space, these devices are largely unregulated. Few carry clearance from the FDA, and those that do carry warnings about eye safety, medication interactions, and risks of use in those with skin of color. Critics also cite that to mitigate these and other risks, it is necessary to underpower the devices which lessens their utility. Some studies do suggest a degree of efficacy as self-administered facial rejuvenation. Bu et al published a paper that suggests the development of an efficacy evaluation system.
Acrylates are found in many industries and exposures can include nail cosmetics, artificial eyelashes, sanitary pads, dental prosthetics, cements used in joint replacements, and insulin pumps. Acrylates are both allergens and irritants. Allergic contact dermatitis to nail cosmetics such as acrylic nails, gel nails, and gel nail polishes, is frequently reported by consumers and nail technicians. Consumer allergy to acrylates has been rising and has been linked to at-home nail kits (Dermatitis. 2024. 35(1): 49-54). Common sites of acrylate allergy are the fingers and hands via direct contact or the head and neck through transfer of allergens. At-home kits have been associated with earlier development of skin reactions and higher frequency of nail damage than non-home users.
In a recent U.S. publication, among the acrylates used in at-home nail cosmetics, ethyl cyanoacrylate and hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2-HEMA) were commonly found (JAAD. 2024. 91(6):1221-3). It should be noted that standard available patch test series do not include acrylates and that acrylates do not all cross-react, making expanded testing series helpful.
The increasing use of at-home nail kits has resulted in increasing rates of acrylate allergy in consumers. In the United States, there are no warnings on these products pointing out the risk of sensitization. In 2020, the European Union limited the use of 2-HEMA containing nail products to professional use only. Dermatologists need to be aware of potential allergens patients are exposed to and help make patients aware of the risks as well as facilitate the identification of allergens through expanded patch testing.
More What’s Hot!
Check out more What’s Hot columns from the DermWorld Editorial Advisory Workgroup.
This review discusses the use of oral smoothened inhibitors (SMOi), specifically vismodegib and sonidegib, in treating Gorlin syndrome (GS), a condition leading to numerous basal cell carcinomas (BCC). No established guidelines exist for their use in this population.
Both daily and intermittent dosing of SMOi offer similar efficacy (~50% response rate), but intermittent dosing may improve patient compliance by reducing side effects. The recommended dosing for vismodegib and sonidegib in GS is the FDA-approved regimen: 150 mg daily for vismodegib and 200 mg daily for sonidegib, with a 3-month on, 2-month off cycle, repeating as needed and tolerated. One study reviewed suggested that failure of one SMOi does not necessarily mean another SMOi will fail. This review provides practical guidance, including recommended initial counseling, testing before treatment, and management of side effects.
Side effects include muscle spasms (check CK if acutely worsening; treatments include amlodipine, gabapentin, pregabalin, etc.), alopecia (treat with topical minoxidil), dysgeusia/weight loss (rule out GI reflux and consider zinc supplementation), fatigue (manage with cognitive behavioral therapy, SSRIs, or exercise), and nausea (evaluate for electrolyte disturbances). SMOi are teratogenic — it is crucial to check pregnancy status, confirm contraception plans during and after therapy, and avoid blood donation. Duration with regard to blood donation in men and women, and contraception in women: 24 months after cessation for vismodegib, and 20 months for sonidegib. Duration with regard to barrier contraception in men: 3 months for vismodegib, and 8 months for sonidegib.
