OTC eczema products with high prevalence of potentially allergenic ingredients
A study recently published in JAADfound that 83% of 74 over-the-counter products with a label claiming to treat eczema contained at least one potential allergen, 66% contained more than two allergens, and only 12 (16%) eczema products had no allergens. The most prevalent potential allergens were fragrance and Compositae (sunflower family).
[Are you a rash whisperer? Learn more about diagnosing and treating patients with ACD inDermWorld.]
The average number of allergens per product was 2.4, with 25 products containing the National Eczema Association seal. There was a high prevalence of Compositae (38%). According to the study authors, the frequent inclusion of Compositae plants in eczema products may be contributing to a heightened rate of sensitization. The authors suggest that patients with treatment-refractory eczema may benefit from patch testing.
Read about how structural racism affects atopic dermatitis in African American children inDermWorld.
DermWorld Insights and Inquiries: Progress in pemphigus — Solidifying rituximab’s role
“Now what do I do?” That question, asked by dermatologists every day about patients who are not responding to therapy, was posed in the preface of the first (and every subsequent) edition of Treatment of Skin Disease: Comprehensive Therapeutic Strategies.
It has been an honor and privilege to work with Drs. Mark Lebwohl, John Berth-Jones, and Ian Coulson for the first five editions of the textbook, and most recently, Dedee Murrell for the upcoming sixth edition (Dr. Berth-Jones has retired). Editing chapters over two decades offers a perspective of how therapy has — or has not — changed. The astonishing biologics have revolutionized dermatoses such as psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, and others. Sadly, for many orphan skin diseases, many therapeutic maneuvers are the same in the sixth edition as they were in the first, published in 2002. Keep reading!
Share your comments on the AD comorbidity guideline
The AAD is seeking member comments on its draft clinical practice guideline on comorbidities associated with atopic dermatitis (AD). These guidelines appraise evidence of the association between AD and selected comorbidities among adults. Feedback received will be provided to the guideline development workgroup for review. Submit your comments today.
An open notes experiment before the information blocking rule
In April 2021, the Office of National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) confirmed that office notes, lab results, and other diagnostic reports should be available to patients as soon as possible and within a “timely manner.” The ONC requires that physicians, hospitals, labs, and certified HIT developers and vendors comply with an information blocking rule, which mainly prohibits the blocking of electronic health information, unless an exception applies to justify delay or withholding of information.
According to reporting inStat, researchers have been studying the impact of open notes for years. About a decade ago, three medical groups launched a pilot program to gauge its effect: Would workloads increase? Would patients call the office fuming over what they had read? They found that none of those fears was realized. Of 105 participating physicians, few reported spending more time answering patients’ questions. None of the physicians chose to stop sharing notes after the study ended.
While many physicians are worried about the impact of patients viewing lab results before speaking with their doctor, the ONC has noted that physicians can withhold information from patients based on their professional judgement and not run afoul of the information blocking requirement, but only if the information will cause harm to the patient. For example, if the purpose of keeping lab results from the patient until the physician can communicate with them directly is to prevent harm, then it is allowable under specific circumstances and on a case-by-case basis. However, the majority of cases would most likely not fall into this category and would be considered information blocking if the results are not released to the patient in a timely manner.
Learn more about what the information blocking rule means in practice and how to ensure compliance inDermWorld.
Sun-damaged skin and subsequent development of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma
A study published in JAMA Dermatologyfound that patients diagnosed with actinic keratosis (AK) had a 1.92% risk per year of developing an incident cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) compared with a 0.83% risk per year for those without AKs.
At 10 years, the cumulative incidence of cSCC reached 17.1% in patients with AK and 5.7% in control patients. Among patients younger than 50 years old, those diagnosed with AK were nearly seven times more likely to be diagnosed with cSCC than those without AK. Patients over 80 years old had eight times the risk of developing cSCC.
[Read about the clinical and dermatoscopic criteria that may aid in discriminating between early SCC and AK inDermWorld Weekly.]
If your practice received funds from the COVID-19 Provider Relief Fund, good news: HHS has announced an extended reporting period to complete the required documentation. Originally, all recipients would have had to complete their documentation during the month of July 2021, regardless of how recently they received funds. HHS has updated this requirement, creating four 90-day reporting periods. The first period, for those who received at least $10,000 in funds prior to June 30, 2020, started July 1, 2021, and runs through Sept. 30.
Need to report? Sign up for the Provider Relief Fund Reporting Portal and review the portal FAQs to learn more about what you’ll need to do once the portal opens in July.
Advertisement
The American Academy of Dermatology is a non-profit professional organization and does not endorse companies or products. Advertising helps support our mission.
