Article

Dermatology remains one of the most competitive specialties in the residency match, with successful applicants demonstrating a well-rounded application reflecting not only their academic excellence but also their dedication to research, community service, and hands-on clinical experience.¹ A growing emphasis on scholarly activities has made it crucial for applicants to stand out, with an increasing number opting to take gap years to engage in focused research endeavors.² In highly competitive specialties such as dermatology, successful applicants now report more than 20 research items on average.^3,4 This trend also is evident in primary care specialties, which have seen a 2- to 3-fold increase in reported research activities. The average unmatched applicant today lists more research items than the average matched applicant did a decade ago, underscoring the growing emphasis on scholarly activity.³

Ideally, graduate medical education should foster an environment of inquiry and scholarship, where residents develop new knowledge, evaluate research findings, and cultivate lifelong habits of inquiry. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires residents to engage in scholarship, such as case reports, research reviews, and original research.⁵ Research during residency has been linked to several benefits, including enhanced patient care through improved critical appraisal skills, clinical reasoning, and lifelong learning.^6,7 Additionally, students and residents who publish research are more likely to achieve higher rank during residency and pursue careers in academic medicine, potentially helping to address the decline in clinician investigators.^8,9 Publishing and presenting research also can enhance a residency program’s reputation, making it more attractive to competitive applicants, and may be beneficial for residents seeking jobs or fellowships.⁶

Dermatology residency programs vary in their structure and support for resident research. One survey revealed that many programs lack the necessary support, structure, and resources to effectively promote and maintain research training.¹ Additionally, residents have less exposure to researchers who could serve as mentors due to the growing demands placed on attending physicians in teaching hospitals.¹⁰

The Research Arms Race

The growing emphasis on scholarly activity for residency and fellowship applicants coupled with the use of research productivity to differentiate candidates has led some to declare a “research arms race” in residency selection.³ As one author stated, “We need less research, better research, and research done for the right reasons.”¹¹ Indeed, most articles authored by medical students are short reviews or case reports, with the majority (59% [207/350]) being cited zero times, according to one analysis.¹² Given the variable research infrastructure between programs and the decreasing availability of research mentors despite the growing emphasis on scholarly activity, applicants face an unfortunate dilemma. Until the system changes, those who protest this research arms race by not engaging in substantial scholarly activity are less likely to match into competitive specialties. Thus, the race continues.

The Value of Mentorship

Resident research success is impacted by having an effective faculty research mentor.¹³ Although all medical research at the student or resident levels should be conducted with a faculty mentor to oversee it, finding a mentor can be challenging. If a resident’s program boasts a strong research infrastructure or prolific faculty, building relationships with potential mentors is a logical first step for residents wishing to engage in research; however, if suitable mentors are lacking, efforts should be made by residents to establish these connections elsewhere, such as attending society meetings to network with potential mentors and applying to formal mentorship programs (eg, the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery’s Preceptor Program, the Women’s Dermatologic Society’s Mentorship Award). Unsolicited email inquiries asking, “Hi Dr. X, my name is Y, and I was wondering if you have any research projects I could help with?” often go unanswered. Instead, consider emailing or approaching potential mentors with a more developed proposition, such as the following example:

Hello Dr. X, my name is Y. I have enjoyed reading your publications on A, which inspired me to think about B. I reviewed the literature and noticed a potential to enhance our current understanding on the topic. My team and I conducted a systematic review of the available literature and drafted a manuscript summarizing our findings. Given your expertise in this field, would you be willing to collaborate on this paper? We would be grateful for your critical eye, suggestions for improvement, and overall thoughts.

This approach demonstrates initiative, provides a clear plan, and shows respect for the mentor’s expertise, increasing the likelihood of a positive response and fruitful collaboration. Assuming the resident’s working draft meets the potential mentor’s basic expectations, such a display of initiative is likely to impress them, and they may then offer opportunities to engage in meaningful research projects in the future. Everyone benefits! These efforts to establish connections with mentors can pave the way to further collaboration and meaningful research opportunities for dermatology residents.

The Systematic Review: An Attractive Option For Residents

There are several potential avenues for students or residents interested in pursuing research. Case reports and case series are relatively easy to compile, can be completed quickly, and often require minimal guidance from a faculty mentor; however, case reports rank low in the research hierarchy. Conversely, prospective blinded clinical trials provide some of the highest-quality evidence available but are challenging to conduct without a practicing faculty member to provide a patient cohort, often require extensive funding, and may involve complex statistical analyses beyond the expertise of most students or residents. Additionally, they may take years to complete, often extending beyond residency or fellowship application deadlines.

Most medical applicants likely hold at least some hesitation in churning out vast amounts of low-quality research merely to boost their publication count for the match process. Ideally, those who pursue scholarly activity should be driven by a genuine desire to contribute meaningfully to the medical literature. One particularly valuable avenue for trainees wishing to engage in research is the systematic review, which aims to identify, evaluate, and summarize the findings of all relevant individual studies regarding a research topic and answer a focused question. If performed thoughtfully, a systematic review can meaningfully contribute to the medical literature without requiring access to a prospectively followed cohort of patients or the constant supervision of a faculty mentor. Sure, systematic reviews may not be as robust as prospective cohort clinical trials, but they often provide comprehensive insights and are considered valuable contributions to evidence-based medicine. With the help of co-residents or medical students, a medical reference librarian, and a statistician—along with a working understanding of universally accepted quality measures—a resident physician and their team can produce a systematic review that ultimately may merit publication in a top-tier medical journal.

The remainder of this column will outline a streamlined approach to the systematic review writing process, specifically tailored for medical residents who may not have affiliations to a prolific research department or established relationships with faculty mentors in their field of interest. The aim is to offer a basic framework to help residents navigate the complexities of conducting and writing a high-quality, impactful systematic review. It is important to emphasize that resident research should always be conducted under the guidance of a faculty mentor, and this approach is not intended to encourage independent research and publication by residents. Instead, it provides steps that can be undertaken with a foundational understanding of accepted principles, allowing residents to compile a working draft of a manuscript in collaboration with a trusted faculty mentor.

The Systematic Review: A Simple Approach

Step 1: Choose a Topic—Once a resident has decided to embark on conducting a systematic review, the first step is to choose a topic, which requires consideration of several factors to ensure relevance, feasibility, and impact. Begin by identifying areas of clinical uncertainty or controversy in which a comprehensive synthesis of the literature could provide valuable insights. Often, such a topic can be gleaned from the conclusion section of other primary studies; statements such as “further study is needed to determine the efficacy of X” or “systematic reviews would be beneficial to ascertaining the impact of Y” may be a great place to start.

Next, ensure that sufficient primary studies exist to support a robust review or meta-analysis by conducting a preliminary literature search, which will confirm that the chosen topic is both researchable and relevant. A narrow, focused, well-defined topic likely will prove more feasible to review than a broad, ill-defined one. Once a topic is selected, it is advisable to discuss it with a faculty mentor before starting the literature search to ensure the topic’s feasibility and clinical relevance, helping to guide your research in a meaningful direction.

When deciding between a systematic review and a meta-analysis, the nature of the research question is an influential factor. A systematic review is particularly suitable for addressing broad questions or topics when the aim is to summarize and synthesize all relevant research studies; for example, a systematic review may investigate the various treatment options for atopic dermatitis and their efficacy, which allows for a comprehensive overview of the available treatments—both the interventions and the outcomes. In contrast, a meta-analysis is ideal for collecting and statistically combining quantitative data from multiple primary studies, provided there are enough relevant studies available in the literature.

Step 2: Build a Team—Recruiting a skilled librarian to assist with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and retrieving relevant papers is crucial for conducting a high-quality systematic review or meta-analysis. Medical librarians specializing in health sciences enhance the efficiency, comprehensiveness, and reliability of your literature search, substantially boosting your work’s credibility. These librarians are well versed in medical databases such as PubMed and Embase. Begin by contacting your institution’s library services, as there often are valuable resources and personnel available to assist you. Personally, I was surprised to find a librarian at my institution specifically dedicated to helping medical residents with such projects! These professionals are eager to help, and if provided with the scope and goal of your project, they can deliver literature search results in a digestible format. Similarly, seeking the expertise of a medical statistician is crucial to the accuracy and legitimacy of your study. In your final paper, it is important to recognize the contributions of the librarian and statistician, either as co-authors or in the acknowledgments section.

In addition, recruiting colleagues or medical students can be an effective strategy to make the project more feasible and offer collaborative benefits for all parties involved. Given the growing emphasis on research for residency and fellowship admissions, there usually is no shortage of motivated volunteers.

Next, identify the software tool you will use for your systematic review. Options range from simple spreadsheets such as Microsoft Excel to reference managers such as EndNote or Mendeley or dedicated systematic review tools. Academic institutions may subscribe to paid services such as Covidence (https://www.covidence.org), or you can utilize free alternatives such as Rayyan (https://www.rayyan.ai). Investing time in learning to navigate dedicated systematic review software can greatly enhance efficiency and reduce frustrations compared to more basic methods. Ultimately, staying organized, thorough, and committed is key.

Step 3: Conduct the Literature Review—At this point, your research topic has been decided, a medical reference librarian has provided the results of a comprehensive literature search, and a software tool has been chosen. The next task is to read hundreds or thousands of papers—easy, right? With your dedicated team assembled, the workload can be divided and conquered. The first step involves screening out duplicate and irrelevant studies based on titles and abstracts. Next, review the remaining papers in more detail. Those that pass this preliminary screen should be read in their entirety, and only the papers relevant to the research topic should be included in the final synthesis. If there are uncertainties about a study’s relevance, consulting a faculty mentor is advisable. To ensure the systematic review is as thorough as possible, pay special attention to the references section of each paper, as cited references can reveal relevant studies that may have been missed in the literature search.

Once all relevant papers are compiled and read, the relevant data points should be extracted and imputed into a data sheet. Collaborating with a medical statistician is crucial at this stage, as they can provide guidance on the most effective ways to structure and input data. After all studies are included, the relevant statistical analyses on the resultant dataset can be run.

Step 4: Write the Paper—In 2020, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to ensure transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews. A full discussion of PRISMA guidelines is beyond the scope of this paper; Page et al¹⁴ provided a summary, checklist, and flow diagram that is available online (https://www.prisma-statement.org). Following the PRISMA checklist and guidelines ensures a high-quality, transparent, and reliable systematic review. These guidelines not only help streamline and simplify the writing process but also enhance its efficiency and effectiveness. Discovering the PRISMA checklist can be transformative, providing a valuable roadmap that guides the author through each step of the reporting process, helping to avoid common pitfalls. This structured approach ultimately leads to a more comprehensive and trustworthy review.

Step 5: Make Finishing Touches—At this stage in the systematic review process, the studies have been compiled and thoroughly analyzed and the statistical analysis has been conducted. The results have been organized within a structured framework following the PRISMA checklist. With these steps completed, the next task is to finalize the manuscript and seek a final review from the senior author or faculty mentor. To streamline this process, it is beneficial to adhere to the formatting guidelines of the specific medical journal you intend to submit to. Check the author guidelines on the journal’s website and review recent systematic reviews published there as a reference. Even if you have not chosen a journal yet, formatting your manuscript according to a prestigious journal’s general style provides a strong foundation that can be easily adapted to fit another journal’s requirements if necessary.

Final Thoughts

Designing and conducting a systematic review is no easy task, but it can be a valuable skill for dermatology residents aiming to contribute meaningfully to the medical literature. The process of compiling a systematic review offers an opportunity for developing critical research skills, from formulating a research question to synthesizing evidence and presenting findings in a clear methodical way. Engaging in systematic review writing not only enhances the resident’s understanding of a particular topic but also demonstrates a commitment to scholarly activity—a key factor in an increasingly competitive residency and fellowship application environment.

The basic steps outlined in this article are just one way in which residents can begin to navigate the complexities of medical research, specifically the systematic review process. By assembling a supportive team, utilizing available resources, and adhering to established guidelines such as PRISMA, one can produce a high-quality, impactful review. Ultimately, the systematic review process is not just about publication—it is about fostering a habit of inquiry, improving patient care, and contributing to the ever-evolving field of medicine. With dedication and collaboration, even the most challenging aspects of research can be tackled, paving the way for future opportunities and professional growth. In this way, perhaps one day the spirit of the “research race” can shift from a frantic sprint to a graceful marathon, where each mile is run with heart and every step is filled with purpose.

Dermatology remains one of the most competitive specialties in the residency match, with successful applicants demonstrating a well-rounded application reflecting not only their academic excellence but also their dedication to research, community service, and hands-on clinical experience.¹ A growing emphasis on scholarly activities has made it crucial for applicants to stand out, with an increasing number opting to take gap years to engage in focused research endeavors.² In highly competitive specialties such as dermatology, successful applicants now report more than 20 research items on average.^3,4 This trend also is evident in primary care specialties, which have seen a 2- to 3-fold increase in reported research activities. The average unmatched applicant today lists more research items than the average matched applicant did a decade ago, underscoring the growing emphasis on scholarly activity.³

Ideally, graduate medical education should foster an environment of inquiry and scholarship, where residents develop new knowledge, evaluate research findings, and cultivate lifelong habits of inquiry. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires residents to engage in scholarship, such as case reports, research reviews, and original research.⁵ Research during residency has been linked to several benefits, including enhanced patient care through improved critical appraisal skills, clinical reasoning, and lifelong learning.^6,7 Additionally, students and residents who publish research are more likely to achieve higher rank during residency and pursue careers in academic medicine, potentially helping to address the decline in clinician investigators.^8,9 Publishing and presenting research also can enhance a residency program’s reputation, making it more attractive to competitive applicants, and may be beneficial for residents seeking jobs or fellowships.⁶

Dermatology residency programs vary in their structure and support for resident research. One survey revealed that many programs lack the necessary support, structure, and resources to effectively promote and maintain research training.¹ Additionally, residents have less exposure to researchers who could serve as mentors due to the growing demands placed on attending physicians in teaching hospitals.¹⁰

The Research Arms Race

The growing emphasis on scholarly activity for residency and fellowship applicants coupled with the use of research productivity to differentiate candidates has led some to declare a “research arms race” in residency selection.³ As one author stated, “We need less research, better research, and research done for the right reasons.”¹¹ Indeed, most articles authored by medical students are short reviews or case reports, with the majority (59% [207/350]) being cited zero times, according to one analysis.¹² Given the variable research infrastructure between programs and the decreasing availability of research mentors despite the growing emphasis on scholarly activity, applicants face an unfortunate dilemma. Until the system changes, those who protest this research arms race by not engaging in substantial scholarly activity are less likely to match into competitive specialties. Thus, the race continues.

The Value of Mentorship

Resident research success is impacted by having an effective faculty research mentor.¹³ Although all medical research at the student or resident levels should be conducted with a faculty mentor to oversee it, finding a mentor can be challenging. If a resident’s program boasts a strong research infrastructure or prolific faculty, building relationships with potential mentors is a logical first step for residents wishing to engage in research; however, if suitable mentors are lacking, efforts should be made by residents to establish these connections elsewhere, such as attending society meetings to network with potential mentors and applying to formal mentorship programs (eg, the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery’s Preceptor Program, the Women’s Dermatologic Society’s Mentorship Award). Unsolicited email inquiries asking, “Hi Dr. X, my name is Y, and I was wondering if you have any research projects I could help with?” often go unanswered. Instead, consider emailing or approaching potential mentors with a more developed proposition, such as the following example:

Hello Dr. X, my name is Y. I have enjoyed reading your publications on A, which inspired me to think about B. I reviewed the literature and noticed a potential to enhance our current understanding on the topic. My team and I conducted a systematic review of the available literature and drafted a manuscript summarizing our findings. Given your expertise in this field, would you be willing to collaborate on this paper? We would be grateful for your critical eye, suggestions for improvement, and overall thoughts.

This approach demonstrates initiative, provides a clear plan, and shows respect for the mentor’s expertise, increasing the likelihood of a positive response and fruitful collaboration. Assuming the resident’s working draft meets the potential mentor’s basic expectations, such a display of initiative is likely to impress them, and they may then offer opportunities to engage in meaningful research projects in the future. Everyone benefits! These efforts to establish connections with mentors can pave the way to further collaboration and meaningful research opportunities for dermatology residents.

The Systematic Review: An Attractive Option For Residents

There are several potential avenues for students or residents interested in pursuing research. Case reports and case series are relatively easy to compile, can be completed quickly, and often require minimal guidance from a faculty mentor; however, case reports rank low in the research hierarchy. Conversely, prospective blinded clinical trials provide some of the highest-quality evidence available but are challenging to conduct without a practicing faculty member to provide a patient cohort, often require extensive funding, and may involve complex statistical analyses beyond the expertise of most students or residents. Additionally, they may take years to complete, often extending beyond residency or fellowship application deadlines.

Most medical applicants likely hold at least some hesitation in churning out vast amounts of low-quality research merely to boost their publication count for the match process. Ideally, those who pursue scholarly activity should be driven by a genuine desire to contribute meaningfully to the medical literature. One particularly valuable avenue for trainees wishing to engage in research is the systematic review, which aims to identify, evaluate, and summarize the findings of all relevant individual studies regarding a research topic and answer a focused question. If performed thoughtfully, a systematic review can meaningfully contribute to the medical literature without requiring access to a prospectively followed cohort of patients or the constant supervision of a faculty mentor. Sure, systematic reviews may not be as robust as prospective cohort clinical trials, but they often provide comprehensive insights and are considered valuable contributions to evidence-based medicine. With the help of co-residents or medical students, a medical reference librarian, and a statistician—along with a working understanding of universally accepted quality measures—a resident physician and their team can produce a systematic review that ultimately may merit publication in a top-tier medical journal.

The remainder of this column will outline a streamlined approach to the systematic review writing process, specifically tailored for medical residents who may not have affiliations to a prolific research department or established relationships with faculty mentors in their field of interest. The aim is to offer a basic framework to help residents navigate the complexities of conducting and writing a high-quality, impactful systematic review. It is important to emphasize that resident research should always be conducted under the guidance of a faculty mentor, and this approach is not intended to encourage independent research and publication by residents. Instead, it provides steps that can be undertaken with a foundational understanding of accepted principles, allowing residents to compile a working draft of a manuscript in collaboration with a trusted faculty mentor.

The Systematic Review: A Simple Approach

Step 1: Choose a Topic—Once a resident has decided to embark on conducting a systematic review, the first step is to choose a topic, which requires consideration of several factors to ensure relevance, feasibility, and impact. Begin by identifying areas of clinical uncertainty or controversy in which a comprehensive synthesis of the literature could provide valuable insights. Often, such a topic can be gleaned from the conclusion section of other primary studies; statements such as “further study is needed to determine the efficacy of X” or “systematic reviews would be beneficial to ascertaining the impact of Y” may be a great place to start.

Next, ensure that sufficient primary studies exist to support a robust review or meta-analysis by conducting a preliminary literature search, which will confirm that the chosen topic is both researchable and relevant. A narrow, focused, well-defined topic likely will prove more feasible to review than a broad, ill-defined one. Once a topic is selected, it is advisable to discuss it with a faculty mentor before starting the literature search to ensure the topic’s feasibility and clinical relevance, helping to guide your research in a meaningful direction.

When deciding between a systematic review and a meta-analysis, the nature of the research question is an influential factor. A systematic review is particularly suitable for addressing broad questions or topics when the aim is to summarize and synthesize all relevant research studies; for example, a systematic review may investigate the various treatment options for atopic dermatitis and their efficacy, which allows for a comprehensive overview of the available treatments—both the interventions and the outcomes. In contrast, a meta-analysis is ideal for collecting and statistically combining quantitative data from multiple primary studies, provided there are enough relevant studies available in the literature.

Step 2: Build a Team—Recruiting a skilled librarian to assist with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and retrieving relevant papers is crucial for conducting a high-quality systematic review or meta-analysis. Medical librarians specializing in health sciences enhance the efficiency, comprehensiveness, and reliability of your literature search, substantially boosting your work’s credibility. These librarians are well versed in medical databases such as PubMed and Embase. Begin by contacting your institution’s library services, as there often are valuable resources and personnel available to assist you. Personally, I was surprised to find a librarian at my institution specifically dedicated to helping medical residents with such projects! These professionals are eager to help, and if provided with the scope and goal of your project, they can deliver literature search results in a digestible format. Similarly, seeking the expertise of a medical statistician is crucial to the accuracy and legitimacy of your study. In your final paper, it is important to recognize the contributions of the librarian and statistician, either as co-authors or in the acknowledgments section.

In addition, recruiting colleagues or medical students can be an effective strategy to make the project more feasible and offer collaborative benefits for all parties involved. Given the growing emphasis on research for residency and fellowship admissions, there usually is no shortage of motivated volunteers.

Next, identify the software tool you will use for your systematic review. Options range from simple spreadsheets such as Microsoft Excel to reference managers such as EndNote or Mendeley or dedicated systematic review tools. Academic institutions may subscribe to paid services such as Covidence (https://www.covidence.org), or you can utilize free alternatives such as Rayyan (https://www.rayyan.ai). Investing time in learning to navigate dedicated systematic review software can greatly enhance efficiency and reduce frustrations compared to more basic methods. Ultimately, staying organized, thorough, and committed is key.

Step 3: Conduct the Literature Review—At this point, your research topic has been decided, a medical reference librarian has provided the results of a comprehensive literature search, and a software tool has been chosen. The next task is to read hundreds or thousands of papers—easy, right? With your dedicated team assembled, the workload can be divided and conquered. The first step involves screening out duplicate and irrelevant studies based on titles and abstracts. Next, review the remaining papers in more detail. Those that pass this preliminary screen should be read in their entirety, and only the papers relevant to the research topic should be included in the final synthesis. If there are uncertainties about a study’s relevance, consulting a faculty mentor is advisable. To ensure the systematic review is as thorough as possible, pay special attention to the references section of each paper, as cited references can reveal relevant studies that may have been missed in the literature search.

Once all relevant papers are compiled and read, the relevant data points should be extracted and imputed into a data sheet. Collaborating with a medical statistician is crucial at this stage, as they can provide guidance on the most effective ways to structure and input data. After all studies are included, the relevant statistical analyses on the resultant dataset can be run.

Step 4: Write the Paper—In 2020, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to ensure transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews. A full discussion of PRISMA guidelines is beyond the scope of this paper; Page et al¹⁴ provided a summary, checklist, and flow diagram that is available online (https://www.prisma-statement.org). Following the PRISMA checklist and guidelines ensures a high-quality, transparent, and reliable systematic review. These guidelines not only help streamline and simplify the writing process but also enhance its efficiency and effectiveness. Discovering the PRISMA checklist can be transformative, providing a valuable roadmap that guides the author through each step of the reporting process, helping to avoid common pitfalls. This structured approach ultimately leads to a more comprehensive and trustworthy review.

Step 5: Make Finishing Touches—At this stage in the systematic review process, the studies have been compiled and thoroughly analyzed and the statistical analysis has been conducted. The results have been organized within a structured framework following the PRISMA checklist. With these steps completed, the next task is to finalize the manuscript and seek a final review from the senior author or faculty mentor. To streamline this process, it is beneficial to adhere to the formatting guidelines of the specific medical journal you intend to submit to. Check the author guidelines on the journal’s website and review recent systematic reviews published there as a reference. Even if you have not chosen a journal yet, formatting your manuscript according to a prestigious journal’s general style provides a strong foundation that can be easily adapted to fit another journal’s requirements if necessary.

Final Thoughts

Designing and conducting a systematic review is no easy task, but it can be a valuable skill for dermatology residents aiming to contribute meaningfully to the medical literature. The process of compiling a systematic review offers an opportunity for developing critical research skills, from formulating a research question to synthesizing evidence and presenting findings in a clear methodical way. Engaging in systematic review writing not only enhances the resident’s understanding of a particular topic but also demonstrates a commitment to scholarly activity—a key factor in an increasingly competitive residency and fellowship application environment.

The basic steps outlined in this article are just one way in which residents can begin to navigate the complexities of medical research, specifically the systematic review process. By assembling a supportive team, utilizing available resources, and adhering to established guidelines such as PRISMA, one can produce a high-quality, impactful review. Ultimately, the systematic review process is not just about publication—it is about fostering a habit of inquiry, improving patient care, and contributing to the ever-evolving field of medicine. With dedication and collaboration, even the most challenging aspects of research can be tackled, paving the way for future opportunities and professional growth. In this way, perhaps one day the spirit of the “research race” can shift from a frantic sprint to a graceful marathon, where each mile is run with heart and every step is filled with purpose.

Dermatology remains one of the most competitive specialties in the residency match, with successful applicants demonstrating a well-rounded application reflecting not only their academic excellence but also their dedication to research, community service, and hands-on clinical experience.¹ A growing emphasis on scholarly activities has made it crucial for applicants to stand out, with an increasing number opting to take gap years to engage in focused research endeavors.² In highly competitive specialties such as dermatology, successful applicants now report more than 20 research items on average.^3,4 This trend also is evident in primary care specialties, which have seen a 2- to 3-fold increase in reported research activities. The average unmatched applicant today lists more research items than the average matched applicant did a decade ago, underscoring the growing emphasis on scholarly activity.³

Ideally, graduate medical education should foster an environment of inquiry and scholarship, where residents develop new knowledge, evaluate research findings, and cultivate lifelong habits of inquiry. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires residents to engage in scholarship, such as case reports, research reviews, and original research.⁵ Research during residency has been linked to several benefits, including enhanced patient care through improved critical appraisal skills, clinical reasoning, and lifelong learning.^6,7 Additionally, students and residents who publish research are more likely to achieve higher rank during residency and pursue careers in academic medicine, potentially helping to address the decline in clinician investigators.^8,9 Publishing and presenting research also can enhance a residency program’s reputation, making it more attractive to competitive applicants, and may be beneficial for residents seeking jobs or fellowships.⁶

Dermatology residency programs vary in their structure and support for resident research. One survey revealed that many programs lack the necessary support, structure, and resources to effectively promote and maintain research training.¹ Additionally, residents have less exposure to researchers who could serve as mentors due to the growing demands placed on attending physicians in teaching hospitals.¹⁰

The Research Arms Race

The growing emphasis on scholarly activity for residency and fellowship applicants coupled with the use of research productivity to differentiate candidates has led some to declare a “research arms race” in residency selection.³ As one author stated, “We need less research, better research, and research done for the right reasons.”¹¹ Indeed, most articles authored by medical students are short reviews or case reports, with the majority (59% [207/350]) being cited zero times, according to one analysis.¹² Given the variable research infrastructure between programs and the decreasing availability of research mentors despite the growing emphasis on scholarly activity, applicants face an unfortunate dilemma. Until the system changes, those who protest this research arms race by not engaging in substantial scholarly activity are less likely to match into competitive specialties. Thus, the race continues.

The Value of Mentorship

Resident research success is impacted by having an effective faculty research mentor.¹³ Although all medical research at the student or resident levels should be conducted with a faculty mentor to oversee it, finding a mentor can be challenging. If a resident’s program boasts a strong research infrastructure or prolific faculty, building relationships with potential mentors is a logical first step for residents wishing to engage in research; however, if suitable mentors are lacking, efforts should be made by residents to establish these connections elsewhere, such as attending society meetings to network with potential mentors and applying to formal mentorship programs (eg, the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery’s Preceptor Program, the Women’s Dermatologic Society’s Mentorship Award). Unsolicited email inquiries asking, “Hi Dr. X, my name is Y, and I was wondering if you have any research projects I could help with?” often go unanswered. Instead, consider emailing or approaching potential mentors with a more developed proposition, such as the following example:

Hello Dr. X, my name is Y. I have enjoyed reading your publications on A, which inspired me to think about B. I reviewed the literature and noticed a potential to enhance our current understanding on the topic. My team and I conducted a systematic review of the available literature and drafted a manuscript summarizing our findings. Given your expertise in this field, would you be willing to collaborate on this paper? We would be grateful for your critical eye, suggestions for improvement, and overall thoughts.

This approach demonstrates initiative, provides a clear plan, and shows respect for the mentor’s expertise, increasing the likelihood of a positive response and fruitful collaboration. Assuming the resident’s working draft meets the potential mentor’s basic expectations, such a display of initiative is likely to impress them, and they may then offer opportunities to engage in meaningful research projects in the future. Everyone benefits! These efforts to establish connections with mentors can pave the way to further collaboration and meaningful research opportunities for dermatology residents.

The Systematic Review: An Attractive Option For Residents

There are several potential avenues for students or residents interested in pursuing research. Case reports and case series are relatively easy to compile, can be completed quickly, and often require minimal guidance from a faculty mentor; however, case reports rank low in the research hierarchy. Conversely, prospective blinded clinical trials provide some of the highest-quality evidence available but are challenging to conduct without a practicing faculty member to provide a patient cohort, often require extensive funding, and may involve complex statistical analyses beyond the expertise of most students or residents. Additionally, they may take years to complete, often extending beyond residency or fellowship application deadlines.

Most medical applicants likely hold at least some hesitation in churning out vast amounts of low-quality research merely to boost their publication count for the match process. Ideally, those who pursue scholarly activity should be driven by a genuine desire to contribute meaningfully to the medical literature. One particularly valuable avenue for trainees wishing to engage in research is the systematic review, which aims to identify, evaluate, and summarize the findings of all relevant individual studies regarding a research topic and answer a focused question. If performed thoughtfully, a systematic review can meaningfully contribute to the medical literature without requiring access to a prospectively followed cohort of patients or the constant supervision of a faculty mentor. Sure, systematic reviews may not be as robust as prospective cohort clinical trials, but they often provide comprehensive insights and are considered valuable contributions to evidence-based medicine. With the help of co-residents or medical students, a medical reference librarian, and a statistician—along with a working understanding of universally accepted quality measures—a resident physician and their team can produce a systematic review that ultimately may merit publication in a top-tier medical journal.

The remainder of this column will outline a streamlined approach to the systematic review writing process, specifically tailored for medical residents who may not have affiliations to a prolific research department or established relationships with faculty mentors in their field of interest. The aim is to offer a basic framework to help residents navigate the complexities of conducting and writing a high-quality, impactful systematic review. It is important to emphasize that resident research should always be conducted under the guidance of a faculty mentor, and this approach is not intended to encourage independent research and publication by residents. Instead, it provides steps that can be undertaken with a foundational understanding of accepted principles, allowing residents to compile a working draft of a manuscript in collaboration with a trusted faculty mentor.

The Systematic Review: A Simple Approach

Step 1: Choose a Topic—Once a resident has decided to embark on conducting a systematic review, the first step is to choose a topic, which requires consideration of several factors to ensure relevance, feasibility, and impact. Begin by identifying areas of clinical uncertainty or controversy in which a comprehensive synthesis of the literature could provide valuable insights. Often, such a topic can be gleaned from the conclusion section of other primary studies; statements such as “further study is needed to determine the efficacy of X” or “systematic reviews would be beneficial to ascertaining the impact of Y” may be a great place to start.

Next, ensure that sufficient primary studies exist to support a robust review or meta-analysis by conducting a preliminary literature search, which will confirm that the chosen topic is both researchable and relevant. A narrow, focused, well-defined topic likely will prove more feasible to review than a broad, ill-defined one. Once a topic is selected, it is advisable to discuss it with a faculty mentor before starting the literature search to ensure the topic’s feasibility and clinical relevance, helping to guide your research in a meaningful direction.

When deciding between a systematic review and a meta-analysis, the nature of the research question is an influential factor. A systematic review is particularly suitable for addressing broad questions or topics when the aim is to summarize and synthesize all relevant research studies; for example, a systematic review may investigate the various treatment options for atopic dermatitis and their efficacy, which allows for a comprehensive overview of the available treatments—both the interventions and the outcomes. In contrast, a meta-analysis is ideal for collecting and statistically combining quantitative data from multiple primary studies, provided there are enough relevant studies available in the literature.

Step 2: Build a Team—Recruiting a skilled librarian to assist with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and retrieving relevant papers is crucial for conducting a high-quality systematic review or meta-analysis. Medical librarians specializing in health sciences enhance the efficiency, comprehensiveness, and reliability of your literature search, substantially boosting your work’s credibility. These librarians are well versed in medical databases such as PubMed and Embase. Begin by contacting your institution’s library services, as there often are valuable resources and personnel available to assist you. Personally, I was surprised to find a librarian at my institution specifically dedicated to helping medical residents with such projects! These professionals are eager to help, and if provided with the scope and goal of your project, they can deliver literature search results in a digestible format. Similarly, seeking the expertise of a medical statistician is crucial to the accuracy and legitimacy of your study. In your final paper, it is important to recognize the contributions of the librarian and statistician, either as co-authors or in the acknowledgments section.

In addition, recruiting colleagues or medical students can be an effective strategy to make the project more feasible and offer collaborative benefits for all parties involved. Given the growing emphasis on research for residency and fellowship admissions, there usually is no shortage of motivated volunteers.

Next, identify the software tool you will use for your systematic review. Options range from simple spreadsheets such as Microsoft Excel to reference managers such as EndNote or Mendeley or dedicated systematic review tools. Academic institutions may subscribe to paid services such as Covidence (https://www.covidence.org), or you can utilize free alternatives such as Rayyan (https://www.rayyan.ai). Investing time in learning to navigate dedicated systematic review software can greatly enhance efficiency and reduce frustrations compared to more basic methods. Ultimately, staying organized, thorough, and committed is key.

Step 3: Conduct the Literature Review—At this point, your research topic has been decided, a medical reference librarian has provided the results of a comprehensive literature search, and a software tool has been chosen. The next task is to read hundreds or thousands of papers—easy, right? With your dedicated team assembled, the workload can be divided and conquered. The first step involves screening out duplicate and irrelevant studies based on titles and abstracts. Next, review the remaining papers in more detail. Those that pass this preliminary screen should be read in their entirety, and only the papers relevant to the research topic should be included in the final synthesis. If there are uncertainties about a study’s relevance, consulting a faculty mentor is advisable. To ensure the systematic review is as thorough as possible, pay special attention to the references section of each paper, as cited references can reveal relevant studies that may have been missed in the literature search.

Once all relevant papers are compiled and read, the relevant data points should be extracted and imputed into a data sheet. Collaborating with a medical statistician is crucial at this stage, as they can provide guidance on the most effective ways to structure and input data. After all studies are included, the relevant statistical analyses on the resultant dataset can be run.

Step 4: Write the Paper—In 2020, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to ensure transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews. A full discussion of PRISMA guidelines is beyond the scope of this paper; Page et al¹⁴ provided a summary, checklist, and flow diagram that is available online (https://www.prisma-statement.org). Following the PRISMA checklist and guidelines ensures a high-quality, transparent, and reliable systematic review. These guidelines not only help streamline and simplify the writing process but also enhance its efficiency and effectiveness. Discovering the PRISMA checklist can be transformative, providing a valuable roadmap that guides the author through each step of the reporting process, helping to avoid common pitfalls. This structured approach ultimately leads to a more comprehensive and trustworthy review.

Step 5: Make Finishing Touches—At this stage in the systematic review process, the studies have been compiled and thoroughly analyzed and the statistical analysis has been conducted. The results have been organized within a structured framework following the PRISMA checklist. With these steps completed, the next task is to finalize the manuscript and seek a final review from the senior author or faculty mentor. To streamline this process, it is beneficial to adhere to the formatting guidelines of the specific medical journal you intend to submit to. Check the author guidelines on the journal’s website and review recent systematic reviews published there as a reference. Even if you have not chosen a journal yet, formatting your manuscript according to a prestigious journal’s general style provides a strong foundation that can be easily adapted to fit another journal’s requirements if necessary.

Final Thoughts

Designing and conducting a systematic review is no easy task, but it can be a valuable skill for dermatology residents aiming to contribute meaningfully to the medical literature. The process of compiling a systematic review offers an opportunity for developing critical research skills, from formulating a research question to synthesizing evidence and presenting findings in a clear methodical way. Engaging in systematic review writing not only enhances the resident’s understanding of a particular topic but also demonstrates a commitment to scholarly activity—a key factor in an increasingly competitive residency and fellowship application environment.

The basic steps outlined in this article are just one way in which residents can begin to navigate the complexities of medical research, specifically the systematic review process. By assembling a supportive team, utilizing available resources, and adhering to established guidelines such as PRISMA, one can produce a high-quality, impactful review. Ultimately, the systematic review process is not just about publication—it is about fostering a habit of inquiry, improving patient care, and contributing to the ever-evolving field of medicine. With dedication and collaboration, even the most challenging aspects of research can be tackled, paving the way for future opportunities and professional growth. In this way, perhaps one day the spirit of the “research race” can shift from a frantic sprint to a graceful marathon, where each mile is run with heart and every step is filled with purpose.

Financial relationships between physicians and industry are prevalent and complex and may have implications for patient care. A 2007 study reported that 94% of 3167 physicians surveyed had established some form of paid relationship with companies in the pharmaceutical industry.¹ To facilitate increased transparency around these relationships, lawmakers passed the Physician Payments Sunshine Act in 2010, which requires pharmaceutical companies and device manufacturers to report all payments made to physicians.² Mandatory disclosures include meals, honoraria, travel expenses, grants, and ownership or investment interests greater than $10. The information is displayed publicly in the Open Payments database (OPD)(https://openpayments-data.cms.gov/), a platform run by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The OPD allows for in-depth analyses of industry payments made to physicians. Many medical specialties—including orthopedics,^3-5 plastic surgery,^6,7 ophthalmology,⁸ and gastroenterology⁹—have published extensive literature characterizing the nature of these payments and disparities in the distribution of payments based on sex, geographic distribution, and other factors. After the first full year of OPD data collection for dermatology in 2014, Feng et al¹⁰ examined the number, amount, and nature of industry payments to dermatologists, as well as their geographic distribution for that year. As a follow-up to this initial research, Schlager et al¹¹ characterized payments made to dermatologists for the year 2016 and found an increase in the total payments, mean payments, and number of dermatologists receiving payments compared with the 2014 data.

Our study aimed to characterize the last 5 years of available OPD data—from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021—to further explore trends in industry payments made to dermatologists. In particular, we examined the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on payments as well as sex disparities and the distribution of industry payments.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of the OPD for the general payment datasets from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021. The results were filtered to include only payments made to dermatologists, excluding physicians from other specialties, physician assistants, and other types of practitioners. Data for each physician were grouped by National Provider Identifier (NPI) for providers included in the set, allowing for analysis at the individual level. Data on sex were extracted from the National Plan & Provider Enumeration System’s monthly data dissemination for NPIs for July 2023 (when the study was conducted) and were joined to the OPD data using the NPI number reported for each physician. All data were extracted, transformed, and analyzed using R software (version 4.2.1). Figures and visualizations were produced using Microsoft Excel 2016.

Results

In 2017, a total of 358,884 payments were made by industry to dermatologists, accounting for nearly $58.0 million. The mean total value of payments received per dermatologist was $5231.74, and the mean payment amount was $161.49. In 2018, the total number of payments increased year-over-year by 5.5% (378,509 payments), the total value of payments received increased by 7.5% (approximately $62.3 million), and the mean total value of payments received per dermatologist increased by 5.3% ($5508.98). In 2019, the total number of payments increased by 3.0% (389,670 total payments), the total value of payments recieved increased by 13.2% (approximately $70.5 million), and the mean total value of payments received per dermatologist increased by 11.3% ($6133.45). All of these values decreased in 2020, likely due to COVID-19–related restrictions on travel and meetings (total number of payments, 208,470 [−46.5%]; total value of payments received, approximately $37.5 million [−46.9%], mean total value of payments received per dermatologist, $3757.27 [−38.7%]), but the mean payment amount remained stable at $179.47. In 2021, the total number of payments (295,808 [+41.9%]), total value of payments received (approximately $50.3 million [+34.4%]), and mean total value of payments received per dermatologist ($4707.88 [+25.3%]) all rebounded, but not to pre-2020 levels (Table 1). When looking at the geographic distribution of payments, the top 5 states receiving the highest total value of payments during the study period included California ($41.51 million), New York ($32.26 million), Florida ($21.38 million), Texas ($19.93 million), and Pennsylvania ($11.69 million).

For each year from 2017 to 2021, more than 80% of payments made to dermatologists were less than $50. The majority (60.7%–75.8%) were in the $10 to $50 range. Between 4% and 5% of payments were more than $1000 for each year. Fewer than 10% of dermatologists received more than $5000 in total payments per year. Most dermatologists (33.3%–36.9%) received $100 to $500 per year. The distribution of payments stratified by number of payments made by amount and payment amount per dermatologist is further delineated in Table 2.

Comment

Benefits of Physician Relationships With Industry—The Physician Payments Sunshine Act increased transparency of industry payments to physicians by creating the OPD through which these relationships can be reported.¹² The effects of these relationships on treatment practices have been the subject of many studies in recent years. Some have suggested that industry ties may impact prescription patterns of endorsed medications.¹³ It also has been reported that the chance of a research study identifying a positive outcome for a particular treatment is higher when the study is funded by a pharmaceutical company compared to other sponsors.¹⁴ On the other hand, some researchers have argued that, when established and maintained in an ethical manner, industry-physician relationships may help practitioners stay updated on the newest treatment paradigms and benefit patient care.¹⁵ Industry relationships may help drive innovation of new products with direct input from frontline physicians who take care of the patients these products aim to help.

Limitations of the OPD—Critics of the OPD have argued that the reported data lack sufficient context and are not easily interpretable by most patients.¹⁶ In addition, many patients might not know about the existence of the database. Indeed, one national survey-based study showed that only 12% of 3542 respondents knew that this information was publicly available, and only 5% knew whether their own physician had received industry payments.¹⁷

Increased Payments From Industry—Our analysis builds on previously reported data in dermatology from 2014 to 2016.^10,11 We found that the trends of increasing numbers and dollar amounts of payments made by industry to dermatologists continued from 2017 to 2019, which may reflect the intended effects of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, as more payments are being reported in a transparent manner. It also shows that relationships between industry and dermatologists have become more commonplace over time.

It is important to consider these trends in the context of overall Medicare expenditures and prescription volumes. Between 2008 and 2021, prescription volumes have been increasing at a rate of 1% to 4% per year, with 2020 being an exception as the volume decreased slightly from the year prior due to COVID-19 (−3%). Similarly, total Medicare and Medicaid expenditures have been growing at a rate of almost 5% per year.¹⁸ Based on our study results, it appears the total value of payments made between 2017 and 2021 increased at a rate that outpaced prescription volume and expenditures; however, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the relationship between payments made to dermatologists and spending without examining prescriptions specific to dermatologists in the OPD dataset. This relationship could be further explored in future studies.

COVID-19 Restrictions Impacted Payments in 2021—We hypothesize that COVID-19–related restrictions on traveling and in-person meetings led to a decrease in the number of payments, total payment amount, and mean total value of payments received per dermatologist. Notably, compensation for services other than consulting, including speaking fees, had the most precipitous decrease in total payment amount. On the other hand, honoraria and consulting fees were least impacted, as many dermatologists were still able to maintain relationships with industry on an advisory basis without traveling. From 2020 to 2021, the number of total payments and dollar amounts increased with easing of COVID-19 restrictions; however, they had not yet rebounded to 2019 levels during the study period. It will be interesting to continue monitoring these trends once data from future years become available.

Top-Compensated Dermatologists—Our study results also show that for all years from 2017 through 2021, the majority of industry payments were made to a small concentrated percentage of top-compensated dermatologists, which may reflect larger and more frequent payments to those identified by pharmaceutical companies as thought leaders and key opinion leaders in the field or those who are more willing to establish extensive ties with industry. Similarly skewed distributions in payments have been shown in other medical subspecialties including neurosurgery, plastic surgery, otolaryngology, and orthopedics.^4,6,19,20 It also is apparent that the majority of compensated dermatologists in the OPD maintain relatively small ties with industry. For every year from 2017 to 2021, more than half of compensated dermatologists received total payments of less than $500 per year, most of which stemmed from the food and beverage category. Interestingly, a prior study showed that patient perceptions of industry-physician ties may be more strongly impacted by the payment category than the amount.²¹ For example, respondents viewed payments for meals and lodging more negatively, as they were seen more as personal gifts without direct benefit to patients. Conversely, respondents held more positive views of physicians who received free drug samples, which were perceived as benefiting patients, as well as those receiving consulting fees, which were perceived as a signal of physician expertise. Notably, in the same study, physicians who received no payments from industry were seen as honest but also were viewed by some respondents as being inexperienced or uninformed about new treatments.²¹

The contribution and public perception of dermatologists who conduct investigator-initiated research utilizing other types of funding (eg, government grants) also are important to consider but were not directly assessed within the scope of the current study.

Sex Disparities in Compensation—Multiple studies in the literature have demonstrated that sex inequities exist across medical specialties.^22,23 In dermatology, although women make up slightly more than 50% of board-certified dermatologists, they continue to be underrepresented compared with men in leadership positions, academic rank, research funding, and lectureships at national meetings.^24-27 In survey-based studies specifically examining gender-based physician compensation, male dermatologists were found to earn higher salaries than their female counterparts in both private practice and academic settings, even after adjusting for work hours, practice characteristics, and academic rank.^28,29

Our study contributes to the growing body of evidence suggesting that sex inequities also may exist with regard to financial payments from industry. Our results showed that, although the number of male and female dermatologists with industry relationships was similar each year, the number of payments made and total payment amount were both significantly (P<.001) higher for male dermatologists from 2017 through 2021. In 2021, the mean payment amount ($201.57 for male dermatologists; $117.73 for female dermatologists) and mean total amount of payments received ($6172.89 and $2957.79, respectively) also were significantly higher for male compared with female dermatologists (P<.001). The cause of this disparity likely is multifactorial and warrants additional studies in the future. One hypothesis in the existing literature is that male physicians may be more inclined to seek out relationships with industry; it also is possible that disparities in research funding, academic rank, and speaking opportunities at national conferences detailed previously may contribute to inequities in industry payments as companies seek out perceived leaders in the field.³⁰

Limitations and Future Directions—Several important limitations of our study warrant further consideration. As with any database study, the accuracy of the results presented and the conclusions drawn are highly dependent on the precision of the available data, which is reliant on transparent documentation by pharmaceutical companies and physicians. There are no independent methods of verifying the information reported. There have been reports in the literature questioning the utility of the OPD data and risk for misinterpretation.^16,31 Furthermore, the OPD only includes companies whose products are covered by government-sponsored programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and therefore does not encompass the totality of industry-dermatologist relationships. We also focused specifically on board-certified dermatologists and did not analyze the extent of industry relationships involving residents, nurses, physician assistants, and other critical members of health care teams that may impact patient care. Differences between academic and private practice payments also could not be examined using the OPD but could present an interesting area for future studies.

Despite these limitations, our study was extensive, using the publicly available OPD to analyze trends and disparities in financial relationships between dermatologists and industry partners from 2017 through 2021. Notably, these findings are not intended to provide judgment or seek to tease out financial relationships that are beneficial for patient care from those that are not; rather, they are intended only to lend additional transparency, provoke thought, and encourage future studies and discussion surrounding this important topic.

Conclusion

Financial relationships between dermatologists and industry are complex and are becoming more prevalent, as shown in our study. These relationships may be critical to facilitate novel patient-centered research and growth in the field of dermatology; however, they also have the potential to be seen as bias in patient care. Transparent reporting of these relationships is an important step in future research regarding the effects of different payment types and serves as the basis for further understanding industry-dermatologist relationships as well as any inequities that exist in the distribution of payments. We encourage all dermatologists to review their public profiles in the OPD. Physicians have the opportunity to review all payment data reported by companies and challenge the accuracy of the data if necessary.

Financial relationships between physicians and industry are prevalent and complex and may have implications for patient care. A 2007 study reported that 94% of 3167 physicians surveyed had established some form of paid relationship with companies in the pharmaceutical industry.¹ To facilitate increased transparency around these relationships, lawmakers passed the Physician Payments Sunshine Act in 2010, which requires pharmaceutical companies and device manufacturers to report all payments made to physicians.² Mandatory disclosures include meals, honoraria, travel expenses, grants, and ownership or investment interests greater than $10. The information is displayed publicly in the Open Payments database (OPD)(https://openpayments-data.cms.gov/), a platform run by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The OPD allows for in-depth analyses of industry payments made to physicians. Many medical specialties—including orthopedics,^3-5 plastic surgery,^6,7 ophthalmology,⁸ and gastroenterology⁹—have published extensive literature characterizing the nature of these payments and disparities in the distribution of payments based on sex, geographic distribution, and other factors. After the first full year of OPD data collection for dermatology in 2014, Feng et al¹⁰ examined the number, amount, and nature of industry payments to dermatologists, as well as their geographic distribution for that year. As a follow-up to this initial research, Schlager et al¹¹ characterized payments made to dermatologists for the year 2016 and found an increase in the total payments, mean payments, and number of dermatologists receiving payments compared with the 2014 data.

Our study aimed to characterize the last 5 years of available OPD data—from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021—to further explore trends in industry payments made to dermatologists. In particular, we examined the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on payments as well as sex disparities and the distribution of industry payments.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of the OPD for the general payment datasets from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021. The results were filtered to include only payments made to dermatologists, excluding physicians from other specialties, physician assistants, and other types of practitioners. Data for each physician were grouped by National Provider Identifier (NPI) for providers included in the set, allowing for analysis at the individual level. Data on sex were extracted from the National Plan & Provider Enumeration System’s monthly data dissemination for NPIs for July 2023 (when the study was conducted) and were joined to the OPD data using the NPI number reported for each physician. All data were extracted, transformed, and analyzed using R software (version 4.2.1). Figures and visualizations were produced using Microsoft Excel 2016.

Results

In 2017, a total of 358,884 payments were made by industry to dermatologists, accounting for nearly $58.0 million. The mean total value of payments received per dermatologist was $5231.74, and the mean payment amount was $161.49. In 2018, the total number of payments increased year-over-year by 5.5% (378,509 payments), the total value of payments received increased by 7.5% (approximately $62.3 million), and the mean total value of payments received per dermatologist increased by 5.3% ($5508.98). In 2019, the total number of payments increased by 3.0% (389,670 total payments), the total value of payments recieved increased by 13.2% (approximately $70.5 million), and the mean total value of payments received per dermatologist increased by 11.3% ($6133.45). All of these values decreased in 2020, likely due to COVID-19–related restrictions on travel and meetings (total number of payments, 208,470 [−46.5%]; total value of payments received, approximately $37.5 million [−46.9%], mean total value of payments received per dermatologist, $3757.27 [−38.7%]), but the mean payment amount remained stable at $179.47. In 2021, the total number of payments (295,808 [+41.9%]), total value of payments received (approximately $50.3 million [+34.4%]), and mean total value of payments received per dermatologist ($4707.88 [+25.3%]) all rebounded, but not to pre-2020 levels (Table 1). When looking at the geographic distribution of payments, the top 5 states receiving the highest total value of payments during the study period included California ($41.51 million), New York ($32.26 million), Florida ($21.38 million), Texas ($19.93 million), and Pennsylvania ($11.69 million).

For each year from 2017 to 2021, more than 80% of payments made to dermatologists were less than $50. The majority (60.7%–75.8%) were in the $10 to $50 range. Between 4% and 5% of payments were more than $1000 for each year. Fewer than 10% of dermatologists received more than $5000 in total payments per year. Most dermatologists (33.3%–36.9%) received $100 to $500 per year. The distribution of payments stratified by number of payments made by amount and payment amount per dermatologist is further delineated in Table 2.

Comment

Benefits of Physician Relationships With Industry—The Physician Payments Sunshine Act increased transparency of industry payments to physicians by creating the OPD through which these relationships can be reported.¹² The effects of these relationships on treatment practices have been the subject of many studies in recent years. Some have suggested that industry ties may impact prescription patterns of endorsed medications.¹³ It also has been reported that the chance of a research study identifying a positive outcome for a particular treatment is higher when the study is funded by a pharmaceutical company compared to other sponsors.¹⁴ On the other hand, some researchers have argued that, when established and maintained in an ethical manner, industry-physician relationships may help practitioners stay updated on the newest treatment paradigms and benefit patient care.¹⁵ Industry relationships may help drive innovation of new products with direct input from frontline physicians who take care of the patients these products aim to help.

Limitations of the OPD—Critics of the OPD have argued that the reported data lack sufficient context and are not easily interpretable by most patients.¹⁶ In addition, many patients might not know about the existence of the database. Indeed, one national survey-based study showed that only 12% of 3542 respondents knew that this information was publicly available, and only 5% knew whether their own physician had received industry payments.¹⁷

Increased Payments From Industry—Our analysis builds on previously reported data in dermatology from 2014 to 2016.^10,11 We found that the trends of increasing numbers and dollar amounts of payments made by industry to dermatologists continued from 2017 to 2019, which may reflect the intended effects of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, as more payments are being reported in a transparent manner. It also shows that relationships between industry and dermatologists have become more commonplace over time.

It is important to consider these trends in the context of overall Medicare expenditures and prescription volumes. Between 2008 and 2021, prescription volumes have been increasing at a rate of 1% to 4% per year, with 2020 being an exception as the volume decreased slightly from the year prior due to COVID-19 (−3%). Similarly, total Medicare and Medicaid expenditures have been growing at a rate of almost 5% per year.¹⁸ Based on our study results, it appears the total value of payments made between 2017 and 2021 increased at a rate that outpaced prescription volume and expenditures; however, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the relationship between payments made to dermatologists and spending without examining prescriptions specific to dermatologists in the OPD dataset. This relationship could be further explored in future studies.

COVID-19 Restrictions Impacted Payments in 2021—We hypothesize that COVID-19–related restrictions on traveling and in-person meetings led to a decrease in the number of payments, total payment amount, and mean total value of payments received per dermatologist. Notably, compensation for services other than consulting, including speaking fees, had the most precipitous decrease in total payment amount. On the other hand, honoraria and consulting fees were least impacted, as many dermatologists were still able to maintain relationships with industry on an advisory basis without traveling. From 2020 to 2021, the number of total payments and dollar amounts increased with easing of COVID-19 restrictions; however, they had not yet rebounded to 2019 levels during the study period. It will be interesting to continue monitoring these trends once data from future years become available.

Top-Compensated Dermatologists—Our study results also show that for all years from 2017 through 2021, the majority of industry payments were made to a small concentrated percentage of top-compensated dermatologists, which may reflect larger and more frequent payments to those identified by pharmaceutical companies as thought leaders and key opinion leaders in the field or those who are more willing to establish extensive ties with industry. Similarly skewed distributions in payments have been shown in other medical subspecialties including neurosurgery, plastic surgery, otolaryngology, and orthopedics.^4,6,19,20 It also is apparent that the majority of compensated dermatologists in the OPD maintain relatively small ties with industry. For every year from 2017 to 2021, more than half of compensated dermatologists received total payments of less than $500 per year, most of which stemmed from the food and beverage category. Interestingly, a prior study showed that patient perceptions of industry-physician ties may be more strongly impacted by the payment category than the amount.²¹ For example, respondents viewed payments for meals and lodging more negatively, as they were seen more as personal gifts without direct benefit to patients. Conversely, respondents held more positive views of physicians who received free drug samples, which were perceived as benefiting patients, as well as those receiving consulting fees, which were perceived as a signal of physician expertise. Notably, in the same study, physicians who received no payments from industry were seen as honest but also were viewed by some respondents as being inexperienced or uninformed about new treatments.²¹

The contribution and public perception of dermatologists who conduct investigator-initiated research utilizing other types of funding (eg, government grants) also are important to consider but were not directly assessed within the scope of the current study.

Sex Disparities in Compensation—Multiple studies in the literature have demonstrated that sex inequities exist across medical specialties.^22,23 In dermatology, although women make up slightly more than 50% of board-certified dermatologists, they continue to be underrepresented compared with men in leadership positions, academic rank, research funding, and lectureships at national meetings.^24-27 In survey-based studies specifically examining gender-based physician compensation, male dermatologists were found to earn higher salaries than their female counterparts in both private practice and academic settings, even after adjusting for work hours, practice characteristics, and academic rank.^28,29

Our study contributes to the growing body of evidence suggesting that sex inequities also may exist with regard to financial payments from industry. Our results showed that, although the number of male and female dermatologists with industry relationships was similar each year, the number of payments made and total payment amount were both significantly (P<.001) higher for male dermatologists from 2017 through 2021. In 2021, the mean payment amount ($201.57 for male dermatologists; $117.73 for female dermatologists) and mean total amount of payments received ($6172.89 and $2957.79, respectively) also were significantly higher for male compared with female dermatologists (P<.001). The cause of this disparity likely is multifactorial and warrants additional studies in the future. One hypothesis in the existing literature is that male physicians may be more inclined to seek out relationships with industry; it also is possible that disparities in research funding, academic rank, and speaking opportunities at national conferences detailed previously may contribute to inequities in industry payments as companies seek out perceived leaders in the field.³⁰

Limitations and Future Directions—Several important limitations of our study warrant further consideration. As with any database study, the accuracy of the results presented and the conclusions drawn are highly dependent on the precision of the available data, which is reliant on transparent documentation by pharmaceutical companies and physicians. There are no independent methods of verifying the information reported. There have been reports in the literature questioning the utility of the OPD data and risk for misinterpretation.^16,31 Furthermore, the OPD only includes companies whose products are covered by government-sponsored programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and therefore does not encompass the totality of industry-dermatologist relationships. We also focused specifically on board-certified dermatologists and did not analyze the extent of industry relationships involving residents, nurses, physician assistants, and other critical members of health care teams that may impact patient care. Differences between academic and private practice payments also could not be examined using the OPD but could present an interesting area for future studies.

Despite these limitations, our study was extensive, using the publicly available OPD to analyze trends and disparities in financial relationships between dermatologists and industry partners from 2017 through 2021. Notably, these findings are not intended to provide judgment or seek to tease out financial relationships that are beneficial for patient care from those that are not; rather, they are intended only to lend additional transparency, provoke thought, and encourage future studies and discussion surrounding this important topic.

Conclusion

Financial relationships between dermatologists and industry are complex and are becoming more prevalent, as shown in our study. These relationships may be critical to facilitate novel patient-centered research and growth in the field of dermatology; however, they also have the potential to be seen as bias in patient care. Transparent reporting of these relationships is an important step in future research regarding the effects of different payment types and serves as the basis for further understanding industry-dermatologist relationships as well as any inequities that exist in the distribution of payments. We encourage all dermatologists to review their public profiles in the OPD. Physicians have the opportunity to review all payment data reported by companies and challenge the accuracy of the data if necessary.

Financial relationships between physicians and industry are prevalent and complex and may have implications for patient care. A 2007 study reported that 94% of 3167 physicians surveyed had established some form of paid relationship with companies in the pharmaceutical industry.¹ To facilitate increased transparency around these relationships, lawmakers passed the Physician Payments Sunshine Act in 2010, which requires pharmaceutical companies and device manufacturers to report all payments made to physicians.² Mandatory disclosures include meals, honoraria, travel expenses, grants, and ownership or investment interests greater than $10. The information is displayed publicly in the Open Payments database (OPD)(https://openpayments-data.cms.gov/), a platform run by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The OPD allows for in-depth analyses of industry payments made to physicians. Many medical specialties—including orthopedics,^3-5 plastic surgery,^6,7 ophthalmology,⁸ and gastroenterology⁹—have published extensive literature characterizing the nature of these payments and disparities in the distribution of payments based on sex, geographic distribution, and other factors. After the first full year of OPD data collection for dermatology in 2014, Feng et al¹⁰ examined the number, amount, and nature of industry payments to dermatologists, as well as their geographic distribution for that year. As a follow-up to this initial research, Schlager et al¹¹ characterized payments made to dermatologists for the year 2016 and found an increase in the total payments, mean payments, and number of dermatologists receiving payments compared with the 2014 data.

Our study aimed to characterize the last 5 years of available OPD data—from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021—to further explore trends in industry payments made to dermatologists. In particular, we examined the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on payments as well as sex disparities and the distribution of industry payments.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of the OPD for the general payment datasets from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021. The results were filtered to include only payments made to dermatologists, excluding physicians from other specialties, physician assistants, and other types of practitioners. Data for each physician were grouped by National Provider Identifier (NPI) for providers included in the set, allowing for analysis at the individual level. Data on sex were extracted from the National Plan & Provider Enumeration System’s monthly data dissemination for NPIs for July 2023 (when the study was conducted) and were joined to the OPD data using the NPI number reported for each physician. All data were extracted, transformed, and analyzed using R software (version 4.2.1). Figures and visualizations were produced using Microsoft Excel 2016.

Results

In 2017, a total of 358,884 payments were made by industry to dermatologists, accounting for nearly $58.0 million. The mean total value of payments received per dermatologist was $5231.74, and the mean payment amount was $161.49. In 2018, the total number of payments increased year-over-year by 5.5% (378,509 payments), the total value of payments received increased by 7.5% (approximately $62.3 million), and the mean total value of payments received per dermatologist increased by 5.3% ($5508.98). In 2019, the total number of payments increased by 3.0% (389,670 total payments), the total value of payments recieved increased by 13.2% (approximately $70.5 million), and the mean total value of payments received per dermatologist increased by 11.3% ($6133.45). All of these values decreased in 2020, likely due to COVID-19–related restrictions on travel and meetings (total number of payments, 208,470 [−46.5%]; total value of payments received, approximately $37.5 million [−46.9%], mean total value of payments received per dermatologist, $3757.27 [−38.7%]), but the mean payment amount remained stable at $179.47. In 2021, the total number of payments (295,808 [+41.9%]), total value of payments received (approximately $50.3 million [+34.4%]), and mean total value of payments received per dermatologist ($4707.88 [+25.3%]) all rebounded, but not to pre-2020 levels (Table 1). When looking at the geographic distribution of payments, the top 5 states receiving the highest total value of payments during the study period included California ($41.51 million), New York ($32.26 million), Florida ($21.38 million), Texas ($19.93 million), and Pennsylvania ($11.69 million).

For each year from 2017 to 2021, more than 80% of payments made to dermatologists were less than $50. The majority (60.7%–75.8%) were in the $10 to $50 range. Between 4% and 5% of payments were more than $1000 for each year. Fewer than 10% of dermatologists received more than $5000 in total payments per year. Most dermatologists (33.3%–36.9%) received $100 to $500 per year. The distribution of payments stratified by number of payments made by amount and payment amount per dermatologist is further delineated in Table 2.

Comment

Benefits of Physician Relationships With Industry—The Physician Payments Sunshine Act increased transparency of industry payments to physicians by creating the OPD through which these relationships can be reported.¹² The effects of these relationships on treatment practices have been the subject of many studies in recent years. Some have suggested that industry ties may impact prescription patterns of endorsed medications.¹³ It also has been reported that the chance of a research study identifying a positive outcome for a particular treatment is higher when the study is funded by a pharmaceutical company compared to other sponsors.¹⁴ On the other hand, some researchers have argued that, when established and maintained in an ethical manner, industry-physician relationships may help practitioners stay updated on the newest treatment paradigms and benefit patient care.¹⁵ Industry relationships may help drive innovation of new products with direct input from frontline physicians who take care of the patients these products aim to help.

Limitations of the OPD—Critics of the OPD have argued that the reported data lack sufficient context and are not easily interpretable by most patients.¹⁶ In addition, many patients might not know about the existence of the database. Indeed, one national survey-based study showed that only 12% of 3542 respondents knew that this information was publicly available, and only 5% knew whether their own physician had received industry payments.¹⁷

Increased Payments From Industry—Our analysis builds on previously reported data in dermatology from 2014 to 2016.^10,11 We found that the trends of increasing numbers and dollar amounts of payments made by industry to dermatologists continued from 2017 to 2019, which may reflect the intended effects of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, as more payments are being reported in a transparent manner. It also shows that relationships between industry and dermatologists have become more commonplace over time.

It is important to consider these trends in the context of overall Medicare expenditures and prescription volumes. Between 2008 and 2021, prescription volumes have been increasing at a rate of 1% to 4% per year, with 2020 being an exception as the volume decreased slightly from the year prior due to COVID-19 (−3%). Similarly, total Medicare and Medicaid expenditures have been growing at a rate of almost 5% per year.¹⁸ Based on our study results, it appears the total value of payments made between 2017 and 2021 increased at a rate that outpaced prescription volume and expenditures; however, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the relationship between payments made to dermatologists and spending without examining prescriptions specific to dermatologists in the OPD dataset. This relationship could be further explored in future studies.

COVID-19 Restrictions Impacted Payments in 2021—We hypothesize that COVID-19–related restrictions on traveling and in-person meetings led to a decrease in the number of payments, total payment amount, and mean total value of payments received per dermatologist. Notably, compensation for services other than consulting, including speaking fees, had the most precipitous decrease in total payment amount. On the other hand, honoraria and consulting fees were least impacted, as many dermatologists were still able to maintain relationships with industry on an advisory basis without traveling. From 2020 to 2021, the number of total payments and dollar amounts increased with easing of COVID-19 restrictions; however, they had not yet rebounded to 2019 levels during the study period. It will be interesting to continue monitoring these trends once data from future years become available.

Top-Compensated Dermatologists—Our study results also show that for all years from 2017 through 2021, the majority of industry payments were made to a small concentrated percentage of top-compensated dermatologists, which may reflect larger and more frequent payments to those identified by pharmaceutical companies as thought leaders and key opinion leaders in the field or those who are more willing to establish extensive ties with industry. Similarly skewed distributions in payments have been shown in other medical subspecialties including neurosurgery, plastic surgery, otolaryngology, and orthopedics.^4,6,19,20 It also is apparent that the majority of compensated dermatologists in the OPD maintain relatively small ties with industry. For every year from 2017 to 2021, more than half of compensated dermatologists received total payments of less than $500 per year, most of which stemmed from the food and beverage category. Interestingly, a prior study showed that patient perceptions of industry-physician ties may be more strongly impacted by the payment category than the amount.²¹ For example, respondents viewed payments for meals and lodging more negatively, as they were seen more as personal gifts without direct benefit to patients. Conversely, respondents held more positive views of physicians who received free drug samples, which were perceived as benefiting patients, as well as those receiving consulting fees, which were perceived as a signal of physician expertise. Notably, in the same study, physicians who received no payments from industry were seen as honest but also were viewed by some respondents as being inexperienced or uninformed about new treatments.²¹

The contribution and public perception of dermatologists who conduct investigator-initiated research utilizing other types of funding (eg, government grants) also are important to consider but were not directly assessed within the scope of the current study.

Sex Disparities in Compensation—Multiple studies in the literature have demonstrated that sex inequities exist across medical specialties.^22,23 In dermatology, although women make up slightly more than 50% of board-certified dermatologists, they continue to be underrepresented compared with men in leadership positions, academic rank, research funding, and lectureships at national meetings.^24-27 In survey-based studies specifically examining gender-based physician compensation, male dermatologists were found to earn higher salaries than their female counterparts in both private practice and academic settings, even after adjusting for work hours, practice characteristics, and academic rank.^28,29

Our study contributes to the growing body of evidence suggesting that sex inequities also may exist with regard to financial payments from industry. Our results showed that, although the number of male and female dermatologists with industry relationships was similar each year, the number of payments made and total payment amount were both significantly (P<.001) higher for male dermatologists from 2017 through 2021. In 2021, the mean payment amount ($201.57 for male dermatologists; $117.73 for female dermatologists) and mean total amount of payments received ($6172.89 and $2957.79, respectively) also were significantly higher for male compared with female dermatologists (P<.001). The cause of this disparity likely is multifactorial and warrants additional studies in the future. One hypothesis in the existing literature is that male physicians may be more inclined to seek out relationships with industry; it also is possible that disparities in research funding, academic rank, and speaking opportunities at national conferences detailed previously may contribute to inequities in industry payments as companies seek out perceived leaders in the field.³⁰

Limitations and Future Directions—Several important limitations of our study warrant further consideration. As with any database study, the accuracy of the results presented and the conclusions drawn are highly dependent on the precision of the available data, which is reliant on transparent documentation by pharmaceutical companies and physicians. There are no independent methods of verifying the information reported. There have been reports in the literature questioning the utility of the OPD data and risk for misinterpretation.^16,31 Furthermore, the OPD only includes companies whose products are covered by government-sponsored programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, and therefore does not encompass the totality of industry-dermatologist relationships. We also focused specifically on board-certified dermatologists and did not analyze the extent of industry relationships involving residents, nurses, physician assistants, and other critical members of health care teams that may impact patient care. Differences between academic and private practice payments also could not be examined using the OPD but could present an interesting area for future studies.

Despite these limitations, our study was extensive, using the publicly available OPD to analyze trends and disparities in financial relationships between dermatologists and industry partners from 2017 through 2021. Notably, these findings are not intended to provide judgment or seek to tease out financial relationships that are beneficial for patient care from those that are not; rather, they are intended only to lend additional transparency, provoke thought, and encourage future studies and discussion surrounding this important topic.

Conclusion

Financial relationships between dermatologists and industry are complex and are becoming more prevalent, as shown in our study. These relationships may be critical to facilitate novel patient-centered research and growth in the field of dermatology; however, they also have the potential to be seen as bias in patient care. Transparent reporting of these relationships is an important step in future research regarding the effects of different payment types and serves as the basis for further understanding industry-dermatologist relationships as well as any inequities that exist in the distribution of payments. We encourage all dermatologists to review their public profiles in the OPD. Physicians have the opportunity to review all payment data reported by companies and challenge the accuracy of the data if necessary.

To the Editor:

Chronic cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CCLE) is an inflammatory condition with myriad cutaneous manifestations. Most forms of CCLE have the potential to progress to systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).¹

Blaschkolinear lupus erythematosus (BLE) is an exceedingly rare subtype of cutaneous lupus erythematosus that usually manifests during childhood as linear plaques along the lines of Blaschko.^2,3 Under normal conditions, Blaschko lines are not noticeable; they correspond to the direction of ectodermal cell migration during cutaneous embryogenesis.^4,5 The embryonic cells travel ventrolaterally, forming a V-shaped pattern on the back, an S-shaped pattern on the trunk, and an hourglass-shaped pattern on the face with several perpendicular intersections near the mouth and nose.⁶ During their migration, the cells are susceptible to somatic mutations and clonal expansion, resulting in a monoclonal population of genetically heterogenous cells. This phenomenon is known as somatic mosaicism and may lead to an increased susceptibility to an array of congenital and inflammatory dermatoses, such as cutaneous lupus erythematosus.⁴ Blaschkolinear entities tend to manifest in a unilateral distribution following exposure to a certain environmental trigger, such as trauma, viral illness, or UV radiation, although a trigger is not always present.⁷ We report a case of BLE manifesting on the head and neck in an adult patient.

A 46-year-old man presented with a pruritic rash of 3 months’ duration on the right cheek that extended inferiorly to the right upper chest. He had a medical history of well-controlled psoriasis, and he denied any antecedent trauma, fevers, chills, arthralgia, or night sweats. There had been no improvement with mometasone ointment 0.1% applied daily for 2 months as prescribed by his primary care provider. Physical examination revealed indurated, red-brown, atrophic plaques in a blaschkolinear distribution around the nose, right upper jaw, right side of the neck, and right upper chest (Figure, A).

To the Editor:

Chronic cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CCLE) is an inflammatory condition with myriad cutaneous manifestations. Most forms of CCLE have the potential to progress to systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).¹

Blaschkolinear lupus erythematosus (BLE) is an exceedingly rare subtype of cutaneous lupus erythematosus that usually manifests during childhood as linear plaques along the lines of Blaschko.^2,3 Under normal conditions, Blaschko lines are not noticeable; they correspond to the direction of ectodermal cell migration during cutaneous embryogenesis.^4,5 The embryonic cells travel ventrolaterally, forming a V-shaped pattern on the back, an S-shaped pattern on the trunk, and an hourglass-shaped pattern on the face with several perpendicular intersections near the mouth and nose.⁶ During their migration, the cells are susceptible to somatic mutations and clonal expansion, resulting in a monoclonal population of genetically heterogenous cells. This phenomenon is known as somatic mosaicism and may lead to an increased susceptibility to an array of congenital and inflammatory dermatoses, such as cutaneous lupus erythematosus.⁴ Blaschkolinear entities tend to manifest in a unilateral distribution following exposure to a certain environmental trigger, such as trauma, viral illness, or UV radiation, although a trigger is not always present.⁷ We report a case of BLE manifesting on the head and neck in an adult patient.

A 46-year-old man presented with a pruritic rash of 3 months’ duration on the right cheek that extended inferiorly to the right upper chest. He had a medical history of well-controlled psoriasis, and he denied any antecedent trauma, fevers, chills, arthralgia, or night sweats. There had been no improvement with mometasone ointment 0.1% applied daily for 2 months as prescribed by his primary care provider. Physical examination revealed indurated, red-brown, atrophic plaques in a blaschkolinear distribution around the nose, right upper jaw, right side of the neck, and right upper chest (Figure, A).

To the Editor:

Chronic cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CCLE) is an inflammatory condition with myriad cutaneous manifestations. Most forms of CCLE have the potential to progress to systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).¹

Blaschkolinear lupus erythematosus (BLE) is an exceedingly rare subtype of cutaneous lupus erythematosus that usually manifests during childhood as linear plaques along the lines of Blaschko.^2,3 Under normal conditions, Blaschko lines are not noticeable; they correspond to the direction of ectodermal cell migration during cutaneous embryogenesis.^4,5 The embryonic cells travel ventrolaterally, forming a V-shaped pattern on the back, an S-shaped pattern on the trunk, and an hourglass-shaped pattern on the face with several perpendicular intersections near the mouth and nose.⁶ During their migration, the cells are susceptible to somatic mutations and clonal expansion, resulting in a monoclonal population of genetically heterogenous cells. This phenomenon is known as somatic mosaicism and may lead to an increased susceptibility to an array of congenital and inflammatory dermatoses, such as cutaneous lupus erythematosus.⁴ Blaschkolinear entities tend to manifest in a unilateral distribution following exposure to a certain environmental trigger, such as trauma, viral illness, or UV radiation, although a trigger is not always present.⁷ We report a case of BLE manifesting on the head and neck in an adult patient.

A 46-year-old man presented with a pruritic rash of 3 months’ duration on the right cheek that extended inferiorly to the right upper chest. He had a medical history of well-controlled psoriasis, and he denied any antecedent trauma, fevers, chills, arthralgia, or night sweats. There had been no improvement with mometasone ointment 0.1% applied daily for 2 months as prescribed by his primary care provider. Physical examination revealed indurated, red-brown, atrophic plaques in a blaschkolinear distribution around the nose, right upper jaw, right side of the neck, and right upper chest (Figure, A).

The question of whether effective targeted therapies for psoriasis reduce the incidence or "prevent" psoriatic arthritis (PsA) has increasingly become a topic of interest. Also of interest is whether there are differences between different drug classes for treating psoriasis and PsA. To evaluate whether there is a difference between patients treated with interleukin (IL)-23 vs IL-12/23 inhibitors, Tsai and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study that included the propensity score–matched data of patients with psoriasis from the TriNetX database who were treated with either IL-23 inhibitors (n = 2142) or IL-12/23 inhibitors (n = 2142). Patients treated with IL-23 inhibitors vs IL-12/23 inhibitors demonstrated no significant difference in the risk for PsA (hazard ratio 0.96; P = .812) and cumulative incidence of PsA (P = .812). Given the many drawbacks of administrative database-based retrospective studies, I would ideally like to see prospective studies conducted to evaluate the differential risk for PsA between targeted therapies for psoriasis. However, patients can be assured that the beneficial effect, if any, is likely to be similar between these two drug classes in regard to PsA prevention.

One important question when treating patients with PsA with biologic therapies is whether treatment with methotrexate needs to be continued. In a post hoc analysis of phase 3 trials (BE OPTIMAL, BE COMPLETE, and BE VITAL) that included patients with PsA who were biologic-naive (n = 852) or had an incomplete response to a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor (n = 400), McInnes and colleagues evaluated the efficacy and safety of bimekizumab in patients with active PsA with or without concomitant methotrexate treatment at baseline. They demonstrated that through week 52, nearly half of the patients receiving bimekizumab with or without methotrexate achieved a ≥50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response (biologic-naive ~55%; TNF inhibitor ~48-56%) and minimal disease activity (biologic-naive ~55%; TNF inhibitor ~47%). Thus, bimekizumab demonstrated similar sustained efficacy for 52 weeks, regardless of concomitant methotrexate use. Therefore, concomitant treatment with methotrexate may not be necessary when treating PsA patients with bimekizumab.

Nonpharmacologic interventions, such as diet and exercise, are likely to be of benefit to PsA patients, but studies on such therapies are lacking. In a cross-sectional study that enrolled 279 patients with PsA and 76 patients with psoriasis, Katsimbri and colleagues showed that patients reporting high vs low levels of exercise had significantly lower median values of Disease Activity Index for PsA and erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and fewer tender and swollen joints. Similarly, high vs low adherence to the Mediterranean diet was associated with a lower Psoriasis Area and Severity Index and body surface area affected by psoriasis. Thus, exercise and a Mediterranean diet may improve disease activity outcomes in PsA, and may be an important adjunct to immunomodulatory therapy. However, prospective interventional trials are required.

Finally, a study evaluated whether the initiation of targeted therapies, such as biologics, led to a decrease in the use of other arthritis-related treatments and healthcare use in PsA. Using data from the French health insurance database, Pina Vegas and colleagues evaluated the difference in the proportion of users of associated treatments, hospitalizations, and sick leaves between 6 months before and 3-9 months after treatment initiation. In a cohort of 9793 patients, they found that first-line targeted therapy significantly reduced the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID; −15%), prednisone (−9%), methotrexate (−15%), and mood disorder treatments (−2%), and lowered the rate of hospitalizations (−12%) and sick leave (−4%; all P < 10^-4). TNF inhibitors showed greater reductions in NSAID and prednisone use compared with IL-17 inhibitors, with similar outcomes for IL-12/23 inhibitors.

The question of whether effective targeted therapies for psoriasis reduce the incidence or "prevent" psoriatic arthritis (PsA) has increasingly become a topic of interest. Also of interest is whether there are differences between different drug classes for treating psoriasis and PsA. To evaluate whether there is a difference between patients treated with interleukin (IL)-23 vs IL-12/23 inhibitors, Tsai and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study that included the propensity score–matched data of patients with psoriasis from the TriNetX database who were treated with either IL-23 inhibitors (n = 2142) or IL-12/23 inhibitors (n = 2142). Patients treated with IL-23 inhibitors vs IL-12/23 inhibitors demonstrated no significant difference in the risk for PsA (hazard ratio 0.96; P = .812) and cumulative incidence of PsA (P = .812). Given the many drawbacks of administrative database-based retrospective studies, I would ideally like to see prospective studies conducted to evaluate the differential risk for PsA between targeted therapies for psoriasis. However, patients can be assured that the beneficial effect, if any, is likely to be similar between these two drug classes in regard to PsA prevention.

One important question when treating patients with PsA with biologic therapies is whether treatment with methotrexate needs to be continued. In a post hoc analysis of phase 3 trials (BE OPTIMAL, BE COMPLETE, and BE VITAL) that included patients with PsA who were biologic-naive (n = 852) or had an incomplete response to a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor (n = 400), McInnes and colleagues evaluated the efficacy and safety of bimekizumab in patients with active PsA with or without concomitant methotrexate treatment at baseline. They demonstrated that through week 52, nearly half of the patients receiving bimekizumab with or without methotrexate achieved a ≥50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response (biologic-naive ~55%; TNF inhibitor ~48-56%) and minimal disease activity (biologic-naive ~55%; TNF inhibitor ~47%). Thus, bimekizumab demonstrated similar sustained efficacy for 52 weeks, regardless of concomitant methotrexate use. Therefore, concomitant treatment with methotrexate may not be necessary when treating PsA patients with bimekizumab.

Nonpharmacologic interventions, such as diet and exercise, are likely to be of benefit to PsA patients, but studies on such therapies are lacking. In a cross-sectional study that enrolled 279 patients with PsA and 76 patients with psoriasis, Katsimbri and colleagues showed that patients reporting high vs low levels of exercise had significantly lower median values of Disease Activity Index for PsA and erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and fewer tender and swollen joints. Similarly, high vs low adherence to the Mediterranean diet was associated with a lower Psoriasis Area and Severity Index and body surface area affected by psoriasis. Thus, exercise and a Mediterranean diet may improve disease activity outcomes in PsA, and may be an important adjunct to immunomodulatory therapy. However, prospective interventional trials are required.

Finally, a study evaluated whether the initiation of targeted therapies, such as biologics, led to a decrease in the use of other arthritis-related treatments and healthcare use in PsA. Using data from the French health insurance database, Pina Vegas and colleagues evaluated the difference in the proportion of users of associated treatments, hospitalizations, and sick leaves between 6 months before and 3-9 months after treatment initiation. In a cohort of 9793 patients, they found that first-line targeted therapy significantly reduced the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID; −15%), prednisone (−9%), methotrexate (−15%), and mood disorder treatments (−2%), and lowered the rate of hospitalizations (−12%) and sick leave (−4%; all P < 10^-4). TNF inhibitors showed greater reductions in NSAID and prednisone use compared with IL-17 inhibitors, with similar outcomes for IL-12/23 inhibitors.

The question of whether effective targeted therapies for psoriasis reduce the incidence or "prevent" psoriatic arthritis (PsA) has increasingly become a topic of interest. Also of interest is whether there are differences between different drug classes for treating psoriasis and PsA. To evaluate whether there is a difference between patients treated with interleukin (IL)-23 vs IL-12/23 inhibitors, Tsai and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study that included the propensity score–matched data of patients with psoriasis from the TriNetX database who were treated with either IL-23 inhibitors (n = 2142) or IL-12/23 inhibitors (n = 2142). Patients treated with IL-23 inhibitors vs IL-12/23 inhibitors demonstrated no significant difference in the risk for PsA (hazard ratio 0.96; P = .812) and cumulative incidence of PsA (P = .812). Given the many drawbacks of administrative database-based retrospective studies, I would ideally like to see prospective studies conducted to evaluate the differential risk for PsA between targeted therapies for psoriasis. However, patients can be assured that the beneficial effect, if any, is likely to be similar between these two drug classes in regard to PsA prevention.

One important question when treating patients with PsA with biologic therapies is whether treatment with methotrexate needs to be continued. In a post hoc analysis of phase 3 trials (BE OPTIMAL, BE COMPLETE, and BE VITAL) that included patients with PsA who were biologic-naive (n = 852) or had an incomplete response to a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor (n = 400), McInnes and colleagues evaluated the efficacy and safety of bimekizumab in patients with active PsA with or without concomitant methotrexate treatment at baseline. They demonstrated that through week 52, nearly half of the patients receiving bimekizumab with or without methotrexate achieved a ≥50% improvement in American College of Rheumatology response (biologic-naive ~55%; TNF inhibitor ~48-56%) and minimal disease activity (biologic-naive ~55%; TNF inhibitor ~47%). Thus, bimekizumab demonstrated similar sustained efficacy for 52 weeks, regardless of concomitant methotrexate use. Therefore, concomitant treatment with methotrexate may not be necessary when treating PsA patients with bimekizumab.

Nonpharmacologic interventions, such as diet and exercise, are likely to be of benefit to PsA patients, but studies on such therapies are lacking. In a cross-sectional study that enrolled 279 patients with PsA and 76 patients with psoriasis, Katsimbri and colleagues showed that patients reporting high vs low levels of exercise had significantly lower median values of Disease Activity Index for PsA and erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and fewer tender and swollen joints. Similarly, high vs low adherence to the Mediterranean diet was associated with a lower Psoriasis Area and Severity Index and body surface area affected by psoriasis. Thus, exercise and a Mediterranean diet may improve disease activity outcomes in PsA, and may be an important adjunct to immunomodulatory therapy. However, prospective interventional trials are required.

Finally, a study evaluated whether the initiation of targeted therapies, such as biologics, led to a decrease in the use of other arthritis-related treatments and healthcare use in PsA. Using data from the French health insurance database, Pina Vegas and colleagues evaluated the difference in the proportion of users of associated treatments, hospitalizations, and sick leaves between 6 months before and 3-9 months after treatment initiation. In a cohort of 9793 patients, they found that first-line targeted therapy significantly reduced the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID; −15%), prednisone (−9%), methotrexate (−15%), and mood disorder treatments (−2%), and lowered the rate of hospitalizations (−12%) and sick leave (−4%; all P < 10^-4). TNF inhibitors showed greater reductions in NSAID and prednisone use compared with IL-17 inhibitors, with similar outcomes for IL-12/23 inhibitors.

The Diagnosis: Pityriasis Lichenoides et Varioliformis Acuta

Sectioned punch biopsies were performed on the patient’s right arm. Histopathology showed acanthosis and parakeratosis in the epidermis, with vacuolar degeneration and dyskeratosis in the basal layer. Dermal changes included extravasated red blood cells in the papillary dermis as well as perivascular lymphocytic infiltrates in both the papillary and reticular dermis (Figure). Direct immunofluorescence of a perilesional biopsy using anti–human IgG, IgM, IgA, C3, and fibrin conjugates showed no findings of immune deposition. Biopsy results were consistent with pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta (PLEVA), and the patient was treated with a 5-day course of oral azithromycin, triamcinolone ointment 0.1% twice daily, and phototherapy with narrowband UVB ³ times weekly. Rapid improvement was noted at 2-month follow-up.

Pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta is a form of pityriasis lichenoides, a group of inflammatory dermatoses that are characterized clinically by successive crops of morphologically diverse lesions. Epidemiologic studies have shown a slight male predominance. It primarily affects children and young adults, with peak ages of 8 and 32 years in pediatric and adult populations, respectively.¹

The pathogenesis of PLEVA remains unclear. An abnormal immune response to Toxoplasma, Epstein-Barr virus, HIV, and other pathogens has been suggested based on serologic evidence of concurrent disease activity with the onset of lesions as well as cutaneous improvement in some patients after treatment of the infection.¹ A T-cell lymphoproliferative etiology also has been considered based on histopathologic similarities between PLEVA and lymphomatoid papulosis (LyP) as well as findings of clonality in T-cell receptor gene rearrangement in many patients.^1,2 Some clinicians consider LyP and PLEVA as separate entities on one disease spectrum.

Eruptions of PLEVA tend to favor the trunk and proximal extremities. Lesions may begin as macules measuring 2 to 3 mm in diameter that quickly evolve into papules with fine scale that remains attached centrally. Ulcerations with hemorrhagic crusts also may be noted as the lesions progress in stage. The rash may persist for weeks to years, and overlapping crops of macules and papules at varying stages of development may be seen in the same patient.¹

Histopathologic findings of PLEVA include spongiosis, dyskeratosis, parakeratosis, and focal keratinocyte necrosis within the epidermis, as well as vacuolar degeneration of the basal layer. Lymphocyte and erythrocyte extravasation may extend into the epidermis. Dermal findings may include edema and wedge-shaped perivascular lymphocytic infiltrates extending into the reticular dermis.¹

Important differential diagnoses to consider include LyP, mycosis fungoides (MF), pemphigus foliaceus, and varicella. Lymphomatoid papulosis is a benign CD30+ lymphoproliferative disorder that is characterized by an indolent course of recurrent, often self-resolving papules that occur most frequently on the trunk, arms, and legs of older patients. There are several histologic subtypes of LyP, but the most common (type A) may manifest with wedge-shaped perivascular lymphocytic infiltrates in the dermis, similar to PLEVA. T-cell receptor gene rearrangement studies characteristically reveal clonality in LyP, and clonality has been reported in PLEVA. However, LyP demonstrates a higher cytologic grade and lacks the characteristic parakeratotic scale and superficial dermal microhemorrhage of PLEVA.³

Mycosis fungoides is a malignant lymphoproliferative disorder that is characterized by an indolent clinical course of persistent patches, plaques, or tumors of various sizes that often manifest in non–sun-exposed areas of the skin. Early stages of MF are difficult to detect histologically, but biopsies may show atypical lymphocytes with hyperchromatic, irregularly contoured nuclei arranged along the basal layer of the epidermis. Epidermal aggregates of atypical lymphocytes (also known as Pautrier microabscesses) are considered highly specific for MF. T-cell receptor and immunopathologic studies also are important adjuncts in the diagnosis of MF.⁴

Pemphigus foliaceus is an autoimmune blistering disease caused by antibodies directed against desmoglein 1, which is found in the granular layer of the epidermis. It manifests with a subtle onset of scattered crusted lesions in the seborrheic areas, such as the scalp, face, chest, and upper back. Histopathologic findings of early blisters may include acantholysis and dyskeratosis in the stratum granulosum as well as vacuolization of the granular layer. The blisters may coalesce into superficial bullae containing fibrin and neutrophils. Immunofluorescence studies that demonstrate intraepidermal C3 and IgG deposition are key to the diagnosis of pemphigus.⁵

Varicella (also known as chickenpox) manifests with crops of vesicles on an erythematous base in a centripetal distribution favoring the trunk and proximal extremities. It often is preceded by prodromal fever, malaise, and myalgia. Histopathologic evaluation of varicella is uncommon but may reveal acantholysis, multinucleation, and nuclear margination of keratinocytes. Viral culture or nucleic acid amplification testing of lesions can be used to verify the diagnosis.⁶

Most cases of PLEVA resolve without intervention.7 Treatment is directed at speeding recovery, providing symptomatic relief, and limiting permanent sequelae. Topical steroids often are used to alleviate inflammation and pruritus. Systemic antibiotics such as doxycycline, minocycline, and erythromycin have been used for their anti-inflammatory properties. Phototherapy of various wavelengths, including broadband and narrowband UVB as well as psoralen plus UVA, have led to improvements in affected patients. Refractory disease may warrant consideration of therapy with methotrexate, acitretin, dapsone, or cyclosporine.⁷

There have been rare reports of PLEVA evolving into its potentially lethal variant, febrile ulceronecrotic Mucha-Habermann disease, which is differentiated by the presence of systemic manifestations, including high fever, sore throat, diarrhea, central nervous system symptoms, abdominal pain, interstitial pneumonitis, splenomegaly, arthritis, sepsis, megaloblastic anemia, or conjunctival ulcers. The orogenital mucosa may be affected. Cutaneous lesions may rapidly progress to large, generalized, coalescent ulcers with necrotic crusts and vasculitic features on biopsy.8 Malignant transformation of PLEVA into LyP or MF rarely may occur and warrants continued follow-up of unresolved lesions.⁹

The Diagnosis: Pityriasis Lichenoides et Varioliformis Acuta

Sectioned punch biopsies were performed on the patient’s right arm. Histopathology showed acanthosis and parakeratosis in the epidermis, with vacuolar degeneration and dyskeratosis in the basal layer. Dermal changes included extravasated red blood cells in the papillary dermis as well as perivascular lymphocytic infiltrates in both the papillary and reticular dermis (Figure). Direct immunofluorescence of a perilesional biopsy using anti–human IgG, IgM, IgA, C3, and fibrin conjugates showed no findings of immune deposition. Biopsy results were consistent with pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta (PLEVA), and the patient was treated with a 5-day course of oral azithromycin, triamcinolone ointment 0.1% twice daily, and phototherapy with narrowband UVB ³ times weekly. Rapid improvement was noted at 2-month follow-up.

Pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta is a form of pityriasis lichenoides, a group of inflammatory dermatoses that are characterized clinically by successive crops of morphologically diverse lesions. Epidemiologic studies have shown a slight male predominance. It primarily affects children and young adults, with peak ages of 8 and 32 years in pediatric and adult populations, respectively.¹

The pathogenesis of PLEVA remains unclear. An abnormal immune response to Toxoplasma, Epstein-Barr virus, HIV, and other pathogens has been suggested based on serologic evidence of concurrent disease activity with the onset of lesions as well as cutaneous improvement in some patients after treatment of the infection.¹ A T-cell lymphoproliferative etiology also has been considered based on histopathologic similarities between PLEVA and lymphomatoid papulosis (LyP) as well as findings of clonality in T-cell receptor gene rearrangement in many patients.^1,2 Some clinicians consider LyP and PLEVA as separate entities on one disease spectrum.

Eruptions of PLEVA tend to favor the trunk and proximal extremities. Lesions may begin as macules measuring 2 to 3 mm in diameter that quickly evolve into papules with fine scale that remains attached centrally. Ulcerations with hemorrhagic crusts also may be noted as the lesions progress in stage. The rash may persist for weeks to years, and overlapping crops of macules and papules at varying stages of development may be seen in the same patient.¹

Histopathologic findings of PLEVA include spongiosis, dyskeratosis, parakeratosis, and focal keratinocyte necrosis within the epidermis, as well as vacuolar degeneration of the basal layer. Lymphocyte and erythrocyte extravasation may extend into the epidermis. Dermal findings may include edema and wedge-shaped perivascular lymphocytic infiltrates extending into the reticular dermis.¹

Important differential diagnoses to consider include LyP, mycosis fungoides (MF), pemphigus foliaceus, and varicella. Lymphomatoid papulosis is a benign CD30+ lymphoproliferative disorder that is characterized by an indolent course of recurrent, often self-resolving papules that occur most frequently on the trunk, arms, and legs of older patients. There are several histologic subtypes of LyP, but the most common (type A) may manifest with wedge-shaped perivascular lymphocytic infiltrates in the dermis, similar to PLEVA. T-cell receptor gene rearrangement studies characteristically reveal clonality in LyP, and clonality has been reported in PLEVA. However, LyP demonstrates a higher cytologic grade and lacks the characteristic parakeratotic scale and superficial dermal microhemorrhage of PLEVA.³

Mycosis fungoides is a malignant lymphoproliferative disorder that is characterized by an indolent clinical course of persistent patches, plaques, or tumors of various sizes that often manifest in non–sun-exposed areas of the skin. Early stages of MF are difficult to detect histologically, but biopsies may show atypical lymphocytes with hyperchromatic, irregularly contoured nuclei arranged along the basal layer of the epidermis. Epidermal aggregates of atypical lymphocytes (also known as Pautrier microabscesses) are considered highly specific for MF. T-cell receptor and immunopathologic studies also are important adjuncts in the diagnosis of MF.⁴

Pemphigus foliaceus is an autoimmune blistering disease caused by antibodies directed against desmoglein 1, which is found in the granular layer of the epidermis. It manifests with a subtle onset of scattered crusted lesions in the seborrheic areas, such as the scalp, face, chest, and upper back. Histopathologic findings of early blisters may include acantholysis and dyskeratosis in the stratum granulosum as well as vacuolization of the granular layer. The blisters may coalesce into superficial bullae containing fibrin and neutrophils. Immunofluorescence studies that demonstrate intraepidermal C3 and IgG deposition are key to the diagnosis of pemphigus.⁵

Varicella (also known as chickenpox) manifests with crops of vesicles on an erythematous base in a centripetal distribution favoring the trunk and proximal extremities. It often is preceded by prodromal fever, malaise, and myalgia. Histopathologic evaluation of varicella is uncommon but may reveal acantholysis, multinucleation, and nuclear margination of keratinocytes. Viral culture or nucleic acid amplification testing of lesions can be used to verify the diagnosis.⁶

Most cases of PLEVA resolve without intervention.7 Treatment is directed at speeding recovery, providing symptomatic relief, and limiting permanent sequelae. Topical steroids often are used to alleviate inflammation and pruritus. Systemic antibiotics such as doxycycline, minocycline, and erythromycin have been used for their anti-inflammatory properties. Phototherapy of various wavelengths, including broadband and narrowband UVB as well as psoralen plus UVA, have led to improvements in affected patients. Refractory disease may warrant consideration of therapy with methotrexate, acitretin, dapsone, or cyclosporine.⁷

There have been rare reports of PLEVA evolving into its potentially lethal variant, febrile ulceronecrotic Mucha-Habermann disease, which is differentiated by the presence of systemic manifestations, including high fever, sore throat, diarrhea, central nervous system symptoms, abdominal pain, interstitial pneumonitis, splenomegaly, arthritis, sepsis, megaloblastic anemia, or conjunctival ulcers. The orogenital mucosa may be affected. Cutaneous lesions may rapidly progress to large, generalized, coalescent ulcers with necrotic crusts and vasculitic features on biopsy.8 Malignant transformation of PLEVA into LyP or MF rarely may occur and warrants continued follow-up of unresolved lesions.⁹

The Diagnosis: Pityriasis Lichenoides et Varioliformis Acuta

Sectioned punch biopsies were performed on the patient’s right arm. Histopathology showed acanthosis and parakeratosis in the epidermis, with vacuolar degeneration and dyskeratosis in the basal layer. Dermal changes included extravasated red blood cells in the papillary dermis as well as perivascular lymphocytic infiltrates in both the papillary and reticular dermis (Figure). Direct immunofluorescence of a perilesional biopsy using anti–human IgG, IgM, IgA, C3, and fibrin conjugates showed no findings of immune deposition. Biopsy results were consistent with pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta (PLEVA), and the patient was treated with a 5-day course of oral azithromycin, triamcinolone ointment 0.1% twice daily, and phototherapy with narrowband UVB ³ times weekly. Rapid improvement was noted at 2-month follow-up.

Pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta is a form of pityriasis lichenoides, a group of inflammatory dermatoses that are characterized clinically by successive crops of morphologically diverse lesions. Epidemiologic studies have shown a slight male predominance. It primarily affects children and young adults, with peak ages of 8 and 32 years in pediatric and adult populations, respectively.¹

The pathogenesis of PLEVA remains unclear. An abnormal immune response to Toxoplasma, Epstein-Barr virus, HIV, and other pathogens has been suggested based on serologic evidence of concurrent disease activity with the onset of lesions as well as cutaneous improvement in some patients after treatment of the infection.¹ A T-cell lymphoproliferative etiology also has been considered based on histopathologic similarities between PLEVA and lymphomatoid papulosis (LyP) as well as findings of clonality in T-cell receptor gene rearrangement in many patients.^1,2 Some clinicians consider LyP and PLEVA as separate entities on one disease spectrum.

Eruptions of PLEVA tend to favor the trunk and proximal extremities. Lesions may begin as macules measuring 2 to 3 mm in diameter that quickly evolve into papules with fine scale that remains attached centrally. Ulcerations with hemorrhagic crusts also may be noted as the lesions progress in stage. The rash may persist for weeks to years, and overlapping crops of macules and papules at varying stages of development may be seen in the same patient.¹

Histopathologic findings of PLEVA include spongiosis, dyskeratosis, parakeratosis, and focal keratinocyte necrosis within the epidermis, as well as vacuolar degeneration of the basal layer. Lymphocyte and erythrocyte extravasation may extend into the epidermis. Dermal findings may include edema and wedge-shaped perivascular lymphocytic infiltrates extending into the reticular dermis.¹

Important differential diagnoses to consider include LyP, mycosis fungoides (MF), pemphigus foliaceus, and varicella. Lymphomatoid papulosis is a benign CD30+ lymphoproliferative disorder that is characterized by an indolent course of recurrent, often self-resolving papules that occur most frequently on the trunk, arms, and legs of older patients. There are several histologic subtypes of LyP, but the most common (type A) may manifest with wedge-shaped perivascular lymphocytic infiltrates in the dermis, similar to PLEVA. T-cell receptor gene rearrangement studies characteristically reveal clonality in LyP, and clonality has been reported in PLEVA. However, LyP demonstrates a higher cytologic grade and lacks the characteristic parakeratotic scale and superficial dermal microhemorrhage of PLEVA.³

Mycosis fungoides is a malignant lymphoproliferative disorder that is characterized by an indolent clinical course of persistent patches, plaques, or tumors of various sizes that often manifest in non–sun-exposed areas of the skin. Early stages of MF are difficult to detect histologically, but biopsies may show atypical lymphocytes with hyperchromatic, irregularly contoured nuclei arranged along the basal layer of the epidermis. Epidermal aggregates of atypical lymphocytes (also known as Pautrier microabscesses) are considered highly specific for MF. T-cell receptor and immunopathologic studies also are important adjuncts in the diagnosis of MF.⁴

Pemphigus foliaceus is an autoimmune blistering disease caused by antibodies directed against desmoglein 1, which is found in the granular layer of the epidermis. It manifests with a subtle onset of scattered crusted lesions in the seborrheic areas, such as the scalp, face, chest, and upper back. Histopathologic findings of early blisters may include acantholysis and dyskeratosis in the stratum granulosum as well as vacuolization of the granular layer. The blisters may coalesce into superficial bullae containing fibrin and neutrophils. Immunofluorescence studies that demonstrate intraepidermal C3 and IgG deposition are key to the diagnosis of pemphigus.⁵

Varicella (also known as chickenpox) manifests with crops of vesicles on an erythematous base in a centripetal distribution favoring the trunk and proximal extremities. It often is preceded by prodromal fever, malaise, and myalgia. Histopathologic evaluation of varicella is uncommon but may reveal acantholysis, multinucleation, and nuclear margination of keratinocytes. Viral culture or nucleic acid amplification testing of lesions can be used to verify the diagnosis.⁶

Most cases of PLEVA resolve without intervention.7 Treatment is directed at speeding recovery, providing symptomatic relief, and limiting permanent sequelae. Topical steroids often are used to alleviate inflammation and pruritus. Systemic antibiotics such as doxycycline, minocycline, and erythromycin have been used for their anti-inflammatory properties. Phototherapy of various wavelengths, including broadband and narrowband UVB as well as psoralen plus UVA, have led to improvements in affected patients. Refractory disease may warrant consideration of therapy with methotrexate, acitretin, dapsone, or cyclosporine.⁷

There have been rare reports of PLEVA evolving into its potentially lethal variant, febrile ulceronecrotic Mucha-Habermann disease, which is differentiated by the presence of systemic manifestations, including high fever, sore throat, diarrhea, central nervous system symptoms, abdominal pain, interstitial pneumonitis, splenomegaly, arthritis, sepsis, megaloblastic anemia, or conjunctival ulcers. The orogenital mucosa may be affected. Cutaneous lesions may rapidly progress to large, generalized, coalescent ulcers with necrotic crusts and vasculitic features on biopsy.8 Malignant transformation of PLEVA into LyP or MF rarely may occur and warrants continued follow-up of unresolved lesions.⁹