UST has a higher drug survival rate than ADA, ETA, and IFX, as observed in other studies. When practice patterns are compared, dosage difference is the main factor that may cause differing survival rates.

Chronic actinic dermatitis is a difficult to treat photodermatitis. Treatment is not standardized and involves topical corticosteroids and immunomodulators, and systemic immunosuppressive agents. We present a case with partial response to dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody approved for atopic dermatitis. In recalcitrant cases, systemic agents such as methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil, and thalidomide, extracorpeal electrophoresis, and low-dose psoralen and ultraviolet A can also be considered.

Background: The public and other physicians expect dermatologists to be experts on aesthetic dermatology services. In Canada, current challenges may limit residents from achieving competency in aesthetic dermatology during their training. This may adversely affect patient safety, create medicolegal risks, and deter graduates from offering aesthetic procedures. Objectives: The objective of this article is to characterize the curriculum, hands-on learning opportunities, and perceptions of aesthetic dermatologic training in Canadian dermatology residency training programs. Methods: An online survey of faculty and residents within Canadian dermatology residency programs was performed. The main outcome measures were the hours of formal aesthetic dermatology teaching, the frequency of hands-on dermatology resident training with injectables and devices, and comparing faculty and resident perspectives regarding resident aesthetic dermatology training. Results: Thirty-six faculty members (40%) and 47 residents (34%) responded to the survey. Lasers, fillers, neuromodulators, and mole removal were most commonly taught in the 10 hours or fewer of formal instruction. Residents commonly observed rather than performed procedures. High dissatisfaction among residents was reported with the quality and quantity of aesthetic dermatology training. Faculty and resident respondents supported increasing aesthetic dermatology education, and approximately 70% of residents plan to offer aesthetic services. Discounted pricing or resident-led clinics were felt to be ways to increase resident hands-on experience. Conclusions: The standardization of core competencies in aesthetic dermatologic procedures is essential to ensure patient safety and practitioner competence. At present, formal aesthetic dermatology training in residency may be insufficient for hands-on training. The majority of dermatology faculty and resident respondents support increasing aesthetic dermatology training.

Foot health is a key component of general health and well-being. Nevertheless, feet are often overlooked by healthcare providers and patients. Common foot problems include infections or inflammatory conditions, abnormal nail disorders (eg, onychomycosis), structural bony abnormalities, circulation disorders, and other conditions. The development of an easy-to-use, rapid, clinical tool to assess foot health can facilitate primary care provider recognition and treatment of common foot problems. This study ascertained interrater item reliability and validity from the preliminary version of one such tool called the Healthy Foot Screen.A total of 18 patients from a community dermatology clinic were individually screened by 11 interprofessional healthcare assessors using the preliminary tool. The assessors included a dermatologist/internist, family physicians, nurses, and podiatrists. The initial draft of the Healthy Foot Screen was created through an extensive literature review, complemented by the clinical judgment of the study team. Cronbach α was calculated for each item to determine interrater reliability. A minimum value of 0.6 was set for an item to be included in the final tool. Where applicable, scores for each item on the screen were calculated for right and left lower limbs and then averaged. Assessors were asked to complete a short survey.Interrater reliability scores for items on the screen were as follows: diabetes and smoking, 1.0; neuropathy, 0.988; palpable foot pulse, 0.916; abnormal fourth to fifth toe web space, 0.905; previous ulcer/amputation, 0.869; pitting edema, 0.872; bony abnormality, 0.804; dry bottom of foot, 0.799; toenail infection, 0.793; other spots/lesions,0.688; and red areas/blisters/pustules, 0.659. Generally, assessors found the tool easy to use, although some areas for improvement were noted.The Healthy Foot Screen can facilitate primary care provider diagnosis and treatment of common foot problems.