Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD

The psychosocial impact of psoriasis is a critical component of disease burden. Psoriatic patients have high rates of depression and anxiety, problems at work, and difficulties with interpersonal relationships and intimacy.¹ A National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) survey from 2003 to 2011 reported that psoriasis affects overall emotional well-being in 88% of patients and enjoyment of life in 82% of patients.²

The reasons for psychosocial burden stem from public misconceptions and disease stigma. A survey of 1005 individuals (age range, 16–64 years) about their perceptions of psoriasis revealed that 16.5% believed that psoriasis is contagious and 6.8% believed that psoriasis is related to personal hygiene.³ Fifty percent practiced discriminatory behavior toward psoriatic patients, including reluctance to shake hands (28.8%) and engage in sexual relations/intercourse (44.1%). Sixty-five percent of psoriatic patients felt their appearance is unsightly, and 73% felt self-conscious about having psoriasis.²

The psychosocial burden exists despite medical treatment of the disease. In a cross-sectional study of 1184 psoriatic patients, 70.2% had impaired quality of life (QOL) as measured by the dermatology life quality index (DLQI), even after receiving a 4-week treatment for psoriasis.⁴ Medical treatment of psoriasis is not enough; providers need to assess overall QOL and provide treatment and resources for these patients in addition to symptomatic management.

There have been many studies on the psychosocial burden of psoriasis, but few have focused on a dermatology resident’s role in addressing this issue. This article will review psychosocial domains—psychiatric comorbidities and social functioning including occupational functioning, interpersonal relationships, and sexual functioning— and discuss a dermatology resident’s role in assessing and addressing each of these areas.

Methods

A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE was conducted using the following terms: psoriasis, depression, anxiety, work productivity, sexual functioning, and interpersonal relationships. Selected articles covered prevalence, assessment, and management of each psychosocial domain.

Results

Psychiatric Comorbidities

Prevalence
A high prevalence of psychiatric comorbidities exists in psoriatic patients. In a study of 469,097 patients with psoriasis, depression was the third most prevalent comorbidity (17.91%), following hyperlipidemia (45.64%) and hypertension (42.19%).⁵ In a 10-year longitudinal, population-based, prospective cohort study, antidepressant prescriptions were twice as frequent in psoriatic patients (17.8%) compared to control (7.9%)(P<.001).⁶ In a meta-analysis of 98 studies investigating psoriatic patients and psychiatric comorbidities, patients with psoriasis were 1.5 times more likely to experience depression (odds ratio [OR]: 1.57; 95% CI, 1.40-1.76) and use antidepressants (OR: 4.24; 95% CI, 1.53-11.76) compared to control.⁷ Patients with psoriasis were more likely to attempt suicide (OR: 1.32; 95% CI, 1.14-1.54) and complete suicide (OR: 1.20; 95% CI, 1.04-1.39) compared to people without psoriasis.⁸ A 1-year cross-sectional study of 90 psoriatic patients reported 78.7% were diagnosed with depression and 76.7% were diagnosed with anxiety. Seventy-two percent reported both anxiety and depression, correlating with worse QOL (χ²=26.7; P<.05).⁹

Assessment
Psychiatric comorbidities are assessed using clinical judgment and formal screening questionnaires in research studies. Signs of depression in patients with psoriasis can manifest as poor treatment adherence and recurrent flares of psoriasis.^10,11 Psoriatic patients with psychiatric comorbidities were less likely to be adherent to treatment (risk ratio: 0.35; P<.003).¹⁰ The patient health questionnaire (PHQ) 9 and generalized anxiety disorder scale (GAD) 7 are validated and reliable questionnaires. The first 2 questions in PHQ-9 and GAD-7 screen for depression and anxiety, respectively.^12-14 These 2-question screens are practical in a fast-paced dermatology outpatient setting. Systematic questionnaires specifically targeting mood disorders may be more beneficial than the widely used DLQI, which may not adequately capture mood disorders. Over the course of 10 months, 607 patients with psoriasis were asked to fill out the PHQ-9, GAD-7, and DLQI. Thirty-eight percent of patients with major depressive disorder had a DLQI score lower than 10, while 46% of patients with generalized anxiety disorder had a DLQI score lower than 10.¹⁵ Other questionnaires, including the hospital anxiety and depression scale and Beck depression inventory, are valid instruments with high sensitivity but are commonly used for research purposes and may not be clinically feasible.¹⁶

Management
Dermatologists should refer patients with depression and/or anxiety to psychiatry. Interventions include pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic management. First-line therapy for depression and anxiety is a combination of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and cognitive behavioral therapy.¹⁷ In addition, providers can direct patients to online resources such as the NPF website, where patients with psoriasis can access information about the signs and symptoms of mood disorders and contact the patient navigation center for further help.¹⁸

Social Functioning

Occupational Prevalence
The NPF found that 92% of patients with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) surveyed between 2003 and 2011 cited their psoriasis as reason for unemployment.² In a survey of 43 patients asked about social and occupational functioning using the social and occupational assessment scale, 62.5% of psoriatic patients reported distress at work and 51.1% reported decreased efficiency at work.¹⁹ A national online survey that was conducted in France and issued to patients with and without psoriasis assessed overall QOL and work productivity using the work productivity and activity impairment questionnaire for psoriasis (WPAI-PSO). Of 714 patients with psoriasis and PsA, the latter had a 57.6% decrease in work productivity over 7 days compared to 27.9% in controls (P<.05).²⁰ Occupational impairment leads to lost wages and hinders advancement, further exacerbating the psychosocial burden of psoriasis.²¹

Occupational Assessment
Formal assessment of occupational function can be done with the WPAI-PSO, a 6-question valid instrument.²² Providers may look for risk factors associated with greater loss in work productivity to help identify and offer support for patients. Patients with increased severity of itching, pain, and scaling experienced a greater decrease in work productivity.^21,23 Patients with PsA warrant early detection and treatment because they experience greater physical restraints that can interfere with work activities. Of the 459 psoriatic patients without a prior diagnosis of PsA who filled out the PsA screening and evaluation questionnaire, 144 (31.4%) received a score of 44 or higher and were referred to rheumatology for further evaluation with the classification criteria for PsA. Nine percent of patients failed to be screened and remained undiagnosed with PsA.²⁴ In a study using the health assessment questionnaire to assess 400 patients with PsA, those with worse physical function due to joint pain and stiffness were less likely to remain employed (OR: 0.56; P=.02).²⁵

Occupational Management
Identifying and coordinating symptoms of PsA between dermatology and rheumatology is beneficial for patients who experience debilitating symptoms. There are a variety of treatments available for PsA. According to the European League Against Rheumatism 2015 guidelines developed from expert opinion and systematic reviews for PsA management, there are 4 phases of treatment, with reassessment every 3 to 6 months for effectiveness of therapy.^26,27 Phase I involves initiating nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with or without glucocorticoid injections. Phase II involves synthetic disease-modifying drugs, including methotrexate, leflunomide, sulfasalazine, or cyclosporine. Phase III involves adding a second synthetic disease-modifying drug or starting a biologic, such as an anti–tumor necrosis factor, IL-12/IL-23, or IL-17 inhibitor. Phase IV involves switching to a different drug in either aforementioned class.^26,27 Treatment with biologics improves work productivity as assessed by WPAI-PSO for psoriasis and PsA.^28-30 Encouraging patients to speak up in the workplace and request small accommodations such as timely breaks or ergonomic chairs can help patients feel more comfortable and supported in the work environment.¹⁸ Patients who felt supported at work were more likely to remain employed.²⁵

Interpersonal Relationships Prevalence
Misinformation about psoriasis, fear of rejection, and feelings of isolation may contribute to interpersonal conflict. Patients have feelings of shame and self-consciousness that hinder them from engaging in social activities and seeking out relationships.³¹ Twenty-nine percent of patients feel that psoriasis has interfered with establishing relationships because of negative self-esteem associated with the disease,³² and 26.3% have experienced people avoiding physical contact.³³ Family and spouses of patients with psoriasis may be secondarily affected due to economic and emotional distress. Ninety-eight percent of family members of psoriatic patients experienced emotional distress and 54% experienced the burden of care.³⁴ In a survey of 63 relatives and partners of patients with psoriasis, 57% experienced psychological distress, including anxiety and worry over a psoriatic patient’s future.³⁵

Interpersonal Relationships Assessment
Current available tools, including the DLQI and short form health survey, measure overall QOL, including social functioning, but may not be practical in a clinic setting. Although no quick-screening test to assess for this domain exists, providers are encouraged to ask patients about disease impact on interpersonal relationships. The family DLQI questionnaire, adapted from the DLQI, may help physicians and social workers evaluate the burden on a patient’s family members.³⁴

Interpersonal Relationships Management
It may be difficult for providers to address problems with interpersonal relationships without accessible tools. Patients may not be accompanied by family or friends during appointments, and it is difficult to screen for these issues during visits. Providers may offer resources such as the NPF website, which provides information about support groups. It also provides tips on dating and connecting to others in the community who share similar experiences.¹⁸ Encouraging patients to seek family or couples therapy also may be beneficial. Increased social support can lead to better QOL and fewer depressive symptoms.³⁶

Sexual Functioning Prevalence
Psoriasis affects both physical and psychological components of sexual function. Among 3485 patients with skin conditions who were surveyed about sexual function, 34% of psoriatic patients reported that psoriasis interfered with sexual functioning at least to a certain degree.³⁷ Sexual impairment was strongly associated with depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation; 24% of depressed patients and 20% of anxious patients experienced sexual problems a lot or very much, based on the DLQI.³⁷ Depending on the questionnaire used, the prevalence of sexual dysfunction due to psoriasis ranged from 35.5% to 71.3%.³⁸ In an observational cohort study of 158 participants (n=79 psoriasis patients and n=79 controls), 34.2% of patients with psoriasis experienced erectile dysfunction compared to 17.7% of controls.³⁹ Forty-two percent of psoriatic patients with genital involvement reported dyspareunia, 32% reported worsening of genital psoriasis after intercourse, and 43% reported decreased frequency of intercourse.⁴⁰

Sexual Functioning Assessment
The Skindex-29, DLQI, and psoriasis disability index are available QOL tools that include one question evaluating difficulties with sexual function. The Massachusetts General Hospital sexual functioning questionnaire is a 5-item validated tool that specifically assesses sexual dysfunction.⁴¹ Distribution of lesions can help identify patients who are more likely to experience sexual dysfunction. In 160 patients who completed the questionnaire and self-reported psoriasis area and severity index, lesions on the abdomen, genitals, lumbar region, and buttocks were associated with worse sexual functioning (OR: 7.9; 95% CI, 2.3-33.4; P<.05).⁴² Dermatologists could assess for sexual problems using either formal questionnaires or direct conversations during the routine psoriasis visit, as patients may be suffering in silence due to this sensitive topic.

Sexual Functioning Management
Better disease control leads to improved sexual function, as patients experience fewer feelings of shame, anxiety, and depression, as well as improvement of physical symptoms that can interfere with sexual functioning.^38,43,44 Reducing friction, warmth, and moisture, as well as avoiding tight clothing, can help those with genital psoriasis. Patients are advised to reapply topical medications after sexual intercourse. Patients also can apply makeup to disguise psoriasis and help reduce feelings of self-consciousness that can impede sexual intimacy.¹⁸

Comment

The psychosocial burden of psoriasis penetrates many facets of patient lives. Psoriasis can invoke feelings of shame and embarrassment that are worsened by the public’s misconceptions about psoriasis, resulting in serious mental health issues that can cause even greater disability. Depression and anxiety are prevalent in patients with psoriasis. The characteristic symptoms of pain and pruritus along with psychiatric comorbidities can have an underestimated impact on daily activities, including employment, interpersonal relationships, and sexual function. Such dysfunctions have serious implications toward wages, professional advancement, social support, and overall QOL.

Dermatology providers play an important role in screening for these problems through validated questionnaires and identifying risks. Simple screening questions such as the PHQ-9 can be beneficial and feasible during dermatology visits. Screening for PsA can help patients avoid problems at work. Sexual dysfunction is a sensitive topic; however, providers can use a 1-question screen from valid questionnaires and inquire about the location of lesions as opportunities to address this issue.

Interventions lead to better disease control, which concurrently improves overall QOL. These interventions depend on both patient adherence and a physician’s commitment to finding an optimal treatment regimen for each individual. Medical management; coordinating care; developing treatment plans with psychiatry, rheumatology, and primary care providers; and psychological counseling and services may be necessary and beneficial (Table). Offering accessible resources such as the NPF website helps patients access information outside the clinic when it is not feasible to address all these concerns in a single visit. Psoriasis requires more than just medical management; it requires dermatology providers to use a multidisciplinary approach to address the psychosocial aspects of the disease.

Conclusion

The psychosocial burden of psoriasis is immense. Stigma, public misconception, mental health concerns, and occupational and interpersonal difficulty are the basis of disease burden. Providers play a vital role in assessing the effect psoriasis has on different areas of patients’ lives and providing appropriate interventions and resources to reduce disease burden.

The psychosocial impact of psoriasis is a critical component of disease burden. Psoriatic patients have high rates of depression and anxiety, problems at work, and difficulties with interpersonal relationships and intimacy.¹ A National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) survey from 2003 to 2011 reported that psoriasis affects overall emotional well-being in 88% of patients and enjoyment of life in 82% of patients.²

The reasons for psychosocial burden stem from public misconceptions and disease stigma. A survey of 1005 individuals (age range, 16–64 years) about their perceptions of psoriasis revealed that 16.5% believed that psoriasis is contagious and 6.8% believed that psoriasis is related to personal hygiene.³ Fifty percent practiced discriminatory behavior toward psoriatic patients, including reluctance to shake hands (28.8%) and engage in sexual relations/intercourse (44.1%). Sixty-five percent of psoriatic patients felt their appearance is unsightly, and 73% felt self-conscious about having psoriasis.²

The psychosocial burden exists despite medical treatment of the disease. In a cross-sectional study of 1184 psoriatic patients, 70.2% had impaired quality of life (QOL) as measured by the dermatology life quality index (DLQI), even after receiving a 4-week treatment for psoriasis.⁴ Medical treatment of psoriasis is not enough; providers need to assess overall QOL and provide treatment and resources for these patients in addition to symptomatic management.

There have been many studies on the psychosocial burden of psoriasis, but few have focused on a dermatology resident’s role in addressing this issue. This article will review psychosocial domains—psychiatric comorbidities and social functioning including occupational functioning, interpersonal relationships, and sexual functioning— and discuss a dermatology resident’s role in assessing and addressing each of these areas.

Methods

A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE was conducted using the following terms: psoriasis, depression, anxiety, work productivity, sexual functioning, and interpersonal relationships. Selected articles covered prevalence, assessment, and management of each psychosocial domain.

Results

Psychiatric Comorbidities

Prevalence
A high prevalence of psychiatric comorbidities exists in psoriatic patients. In a study of 469,097 patients with psoriasis, depression was the third most prevalent comorbidity (17.91%), following hyperlipidemia (45.64%) and hypertension (42.19%).⁵ In a 10-year longitudinal, population-based, prospective cohort study, antidepressant prescriptions were twice as frequent in psoriatic patients (17.8%) compared to control (7.9%)(P<.001).⁶ In a meta-analysis of 98 studies investigating psoriatic patients and psychiatric comorbidities, patients with psoriasis were 1.5 times more likely to experience depression (odds ratio [OR]: 1.57; 95% CI, 1.40-1.76) and use antidepressants (OR: 4.24; 95% CI, 1.53-11.76) compared to control.⁷ Patients with psoriasis were more likely to attempt suicide (OR: 1.32; 95% CI, 1.14-1.54) and complete suicide (OR: 1.20; 95% CI, 1.04-1.39) compared to people without psoriasis.⁸ A 1-year cross-sectional study of 90 psoriatic patients reported 78.7% were diagnosed with depression and 76.7% were diagnosed with anxiety. Seventy-two percent reported both anxiety and depression, correlating with worse QOL (χ²=26.7; P<.05).⁹

Assessment
Psychiatric comorbidities are assessed using clinical judgment and formal screening questionnaires in research studies. Signs of depression in patients with psoriasis can manifest as poor treatment adherence and recurrent flares of psoriasis.^10,11 Psoriatic patients with psychiatric comorbidities were less likely to be adherent to treatment (risk ratio: 0.35; P<.003).¹⁰ The patient health questionnaire (PHQ) 9 and generalized anxiety disorder scale (GAD) 7 are validated and reliable questionnaires. The first 2 questions in PHQ-9 and GAD-7 screen for depression and anxiety, respectively.^12-14 These 2-question screens are practical in a fast-paced dermatology outpatient setting. Systematic questionnaires specifically targeting mood disorders may be more beneficial than the widely used DLQI, which may not adequately capture mood disorders. Over the course of 10 months, 607 patients with psoriasis were asked to fill out the PHQ-9, GAD-7, and DLQI. Thirty-eight percent of patients with major depressive disorder had a DLQI score lower than 10, while 46% of patients with generalized anxiety disorder had a DLQI score lower than 10.¹⁵ Other questionnaires, including the hospital anxiety and depression scale and Beck depression inventory, are valid instruments with high sensitivity but are commonly used for research purposes and may not be clinically feasible.¹⁶

Management
Dermatologists should refer patients with depression and/or anxiety to psychiatry. Interventions include pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic management. First-line therapy for depression and anxiety is a combination of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and cognitive behavioral therapy.¹⁷ In addition, providers can direct patients to online resources such as the NPF website, where patients with psoriasis can access information about the signs and symptoms of mood disorders and contact the patient navigation center for further help.¹⁸

Social Functioning

Occupational Prevalence
The NPF found that 92% of patients with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) surveyed between 2003 and 2011 cited their psoriasis as reason for unemployment.² In a survey of 43 patients asked about social and occupational functioning using the social and occupational assessment scale, 62.5% of psoriatic patients reported distress at work and 51.1% reported decreased efficiency at work.¹⁹ A national online survey that was conducted in France and issued to patients with and without psoriasis assessed overall QOL and work productivity using the work productivity and activity impairment questionnaire for psoriasis (WPAI-PSO). Of 714 patients with psoriasis and PsA, the latter had a 57.6% decrease in work productivity over 7 days compared to 27.9% in controls (P<.05).²⁰ Occupational impairment leads to lost wages and hinders advancement, further exacerbating the psychosocial burden of psoriasis.²¹

Occupational Assessment
Formal assessment of occupational function can be done with the WPAI-PSO, a 6-question valid instrument.²² Providers may look for risk factors associated with greater loss in work productivity to help identify and offer support for patients. Patients with increased severity of itching, pain, and scaling experienced a greater decrease in work productivity.^21,23 Patients with PsA warrant early detection and treatment because they experience greater physical restraints that can interfere with work activities. Of the 459 psoriatic patients without a prior diagnosis of PsA who filled out the PsA screening and evaluation questionnaire, 144 (31.4%) received a score of 44 or higher and were referred to rheumatology for further evaluation with the classification criteria for PsA. Nine percent of patients failed to be screened and remained undiagnosed with PsA.²⁴ In a study using the health assessment questionnaire to assess 400 patients with PsA, those with worse physical function due to joint pain and stiffness were less likely to remain employed (OR: 0.56; P=.02).²⁵

Occupational Management
Identifying and coordinating symptoms of PsA between dermatology and rheumatology is beneficial for patients who experience debilitating symptoms. There are a variety of treatments available for PsA. According to the European League Against Rheumatism 2015 guidelines developed from expert opinion and systematic reviews for PsA management, there are 4 phases of treatment, with reassessment every 3 to 6 months for effectiveness of therapy.^26,27 Phase I involves initiating nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with or without glucocorticoid injections. Phase II involves synthetic disease-modifying drugs, including methotrexate, leflunomide, sulfasalazine, or cyclosporine. Phase III involves adding a second synthetic disease-modifying drug or starting a biologic, such as an anti–tumor necrosis factor, IL-12/IL-23, or IL-17 inhibitor. Phase IV involves switching to a different drug in either aforementioned class.^26,27 Treatment with biologics improves work productivity as assessed by WPAI-PSO for psoriasis and PsA.^28-30 Encouraging patients to speak up in the workplace and request small accommodations such as timely breaks or ergonomic chairs can help patients feel more comfortable and supported in the work environment.¹⁸ Patients who felt supported at work were more likely to remain employed.²⁵

Interpersonal Relationships Prevalence
Misinformation about psoriasis, fear of rejection, and feelings of isolation may contribute to interpersonal conflict. Patients have feelings of shame and self-consciousness that hinder them from engaging in social activities and seeking out relationships.³¹ Twenty-nine percent of patients feel that psoriasis has interfered with establishing relationships because of negative self-esteem associated with the disease,³² and 26.3% have experienced people avoiding physical contact.³³ Family and spouses of patients with psoriasis may be secondarily affected due to economic and emotional distress. Ninety-eight percent of family members of psoriatic patients experienced emotional distress and 54% experienced the burden of care.³⁴ In a survey of 63 relatives and partners of patients with psoriasis, 57% experienced psychological distress, including anxiety and worry over a psoriatic patient’s future.³⁵

Interpersonal Relationships Assessment
Current available tools, including the DLQI and short form health survey, measure overall QOL, including social functioning, but may not be practical in a clinic setting. Although no quick-screening test to assess for this domain exists, providers are encouraged to ask patients about disease impact on interpersonal relationships. The family DLQI questionnaire, adapted from the DLQI, may help physicians and social workers evaluate the burden on a patient’s family members.³⁴

Interpersonal Relationships Management
It may be difficult for providers to address problems with interpersonal relationships without accessible tools. Patients may not be accompanied by family or friends during appointments, and it is difficult to screen for these issues during visits. Providers may offer resources such as the NPF website, which provides information about support groups. It also provides tips on dating and connecting to others in the community who share similar experiences.¹⁸ Encouraging patients to seek family or couples therapy also may be beneficial. Increased social support can lead to better QOL and fewer depressive symptoms.³⁶

Sexual Functioning Prevalence
Psoriasis affects both physical and psychological components of sexual function. Among 3485 patients with skin conditions who were surveyed about sexual function, 34% of psoriatic patients reported that psoriasis interfered with sexual functioning at least to a certain degree.³⁷ Sexual impairment was strongly associated with depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation; 24% of depressed patients and 20% of anxious patients experienced sexual problems a lot or very much, based on the DLQI.³⁷ Depending on the questionnaire used, the prevalence of sexual dysfunction due to psoriasis ranged from 35.5% to 71.3%.³⁸ In an observational cohort study of 158 participants (n=79 psoriasis patients and n=79 controls), 34.2% of patients with psoriasis experienced erectile dysfunction compared to 17.7% of controls.³⁹ Forty-two percent of psoriatic patients with genital involvement reported dyspareunia, 32% reported worsening of genital psoriasis after intercourse, and 43% reported decreased frequency of intercourse.⁴⁰

Sexual Functioning Assessment
The Skindex-29, DLQI, and psoriasis disability index are available QOL tools that include one question evaluating difficulties with sexual function. The Massachusetts General Hospital sexual functioning questionnaire is a 5-item validated tool that specifically assesses sexual dysfunction.⁴¹ Distribution of lesions can help identify patients who are more likely to experience sexual dysfunction. In 160 patients who completed the questionnaire and self-reported psoriasis area and severity index, lesions on the abdomen, genitals, lumbar region, and buttocks were associated with worse sexual functioning (OR: 7.9; 95% CI, 2.3-33.4; P<.05).⁴² Dermatologists could assess for sexual problems using either formal questionnaires or direct conversations during the routine psoriasis visit, as patients may be suffering in silence due to this sensitive topic.

Sexual Functioning Management
Better disease control leads to improved sexual function, as patients experience fewer feelings of shame, anxiety, and depression, as well as improvement of physical symptoms that can interfere with sexual functioning.^38,43,44 Reducing friction, warmth, and moisture, as well as avoiding tight clothing, can help those with genital psoriasis. Patients are advised to reapply topical medications after sexual intercourse. Patients also can apply makeup to disguise psoriasis and help reduce feelings of self-consciousness that can impede sexual intimacy.¹⁸

Comment

The psychosocial burden of psoriasis penetrates many facets of patient lives. Psoriasis can invoke feelings of shame and embarrassment that are worsened by the public’s misconceptions about psoriasis, resulting in serious mental health issues that can cause even greater disability. Depression and anxiety are prevalent in patients with psoriasis. The characteristic symptoms of pain and pruritus along with psychiatric comorbidities can have an underestimated impact on daily activities, including employment, interpersonal relationships, and sexual function. Such dysfunctions have serious implications toward wages, professional advancement, social support, and overall QOL.

Dermatology providers play an important role in screening for these problems through validated questionnaires and identifying risks. Simple screening questions such as the PHQ-9 can be beneficial and feasible during dermatology visits. Screening for PsA can help patients avoid problems at work. Sexual dysfunction is a sensitive topic; however, providers can use a 1-question screen from valid questionnaires and inquire about the location of lesions as opportunities to address this issue.

Interventions lead to better disease control, which concurrently improves overall QOL. These interventions depend on both patient adherence and a physician’s commitment to finding an optimal treatment regimen for each individual. Medical management; coordinating care; developing treatment plans with psychiatry, rheumatology, and primary care providers; and psychological counseling and services may be necessary and beneficial (Table). Offering accessible resources such as the NPF website helps patients access information outside the clinic when it is not feasible to address all these concerns in a single visit. Psoriasis requires more than just medical management; it requires dermatology providers to use a multidisciplinary approach to address the psychosocial aspects of the disease.

Conclusion

The psychosocial burden of psoriasis is immense. Stigma, public misconception, mental health concerns, and occupational and interpersonal difficulty are the basis of disease burden. Providers play a vital role in assessing the effect psoriasis has on different areas of patients’ lives and providing appropriate interventions and resources to reduce disease burden.

The psychosocial impact of psoriasis is a critical component of disease burden. Psoriatic patients have high rates of depression and anxiety, problems at work, and difficulties with interpersonal relationships and intimacy.¹ A National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) survey from 2003 to 2011 reported that psoriasis affects overall emotional well-being in 88% of patients and enjoyment of life in 82% of patients.²

The reasons for psychosocial burden stem from public misconceptions and disease stigma. A survey of 1005 individuals (age range, 16–64 years) about their perceptions of psoriasis revealed that 16.5% believed that psoriasis is contagious and 6.8% believed that psoriasis is related to personal hygiene.³ Fifty percent practiced discriminatory behavior toward psoriatic patients, including reluctance to shake hands (28.8%) and engage in sexual relations/intercourse (44.1%). Sixty-five percent of psoriatic patients felt their appearance is unsightly, and 73% felt self-conscious about having psoriasis.²

The psychosocial burden exists despite medical treatment of the disease. In a cross-sectional study of 1184 psoriatic patients, 70.2% had impaired quality of life (QOL) as measured by the dermatology life quality index (DLQI), even after receiving a 4-week treatment for psoriasis.⁴ Medical treatment of psoriasis is not enough; providers need to assess overall QOL and provide treatment and resources for these patients in addition to symptomatic management.

There have been many studies on the psychosocial burden of psoriasis, but few have focused on a dermatology resident’s role in addressing this issue. This article will review psychosocial domains—psychiatric comorbidities and social functioning including occupational functioning, interpersonal relationships, and sexual functioning— and discuss a dermatology resident’s role in assessing and addressing each of these areas.

Methods

A PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE was conducted using the following terms: psoriasis, depression, anxiety, work productivity, sexual functioning, and interpersonal relationships. Selected articles covered prevalence, assessment, and management of each psychosocial domain.

Results

Psychiatric Comorbidities

Prevalence
A high prevalence of psychiatric comorbidities exists in psoriatic patients. In a study of 469,097 patients with psoriasis, depression was the third most prevalent comorbidity (17.91%), following hyperlipidemia (45.64%) and hypertension (42.19%).⁵ In a 10-year longitudinal, population-based, prospective cohort study, antidepressant prescriptions were twice as frequent in psoriatic patients (17.8%) compared to control (7.9%)(P<.001).⁶ In a meta-analysis of 98 studies investigating psoriatic patients and psychiatric comorbidities, patients with psoriasis were 1.5 times more likely to experience depression (odds ratio [OR]: 1.57; 95% CI, 1.40-1.76) and use antidepressants (OR: 4.24; 95% CI, 1.53-11.76) compared to control.⁷ Patients with psoriasis were more likely to attempt suicide (OR: 1.32; 95% CI, 1.14-1.54) and complete suicide (OR: 1.20; 95% CI, 1.04-1.39) compared to people without psoriasis.⁸ A 1-year cross-sectional study of 90 psoriatic patients reported 78.7% were diagnosed with depression and 76.7% were diagnosed with anxiety. Seventy-two percent reported both anxiety and depression, correlating with worse QOL (χ²=26.7; P<.05).⁹

Assessment
Psychiatric comorbidities are assessed using clinical judgment and formal screening questionnaires in research studies. Signs of depression in patients with psoriasis can manifest as poor treatment adherence and recurrent flares of psoriasis.^10,11 Psoriatic patients with psychiatric comorbidities were less likely to be adherent to treatment (risk ratio: 0.35; P<.003).¹⁰ The patient health questionnaire (PHQ) 9 and generalized anxiety disorder scale (GAD) 7 are validated and reliable questionnaires. The first 2 questions in PHQ-9 and GAD-7 screen for depression and anxiety, respectively.^12-14 These 2-question screens are practical in a fast-paced dermatology outpatient setting. Systematic questionnaires specifically targeting mood disorders may be more beneficial than the widely used DLQI, which may not adequately capture mood disorders. Over the course of 10 months, 607 patients with psoriasis were asked to fill out the PHQ-9, GAD-7, and DLQI. Thirty-eight percent of patients with major depressive disorder had a DLQI score lower than 10, while 46% of patients with generalized anxiety disorder had a DLQI score lower than 10.¹⁵ Other questionnaires, including the hospital anxiety and depression scale and Beck depression inventory, are valid instruments with high sensitivity but are commonly used for research purposes and may not be clinically feasible.¹⁶

Management
Dermatologists should refer patients with depression and/or anxiety to psychiatry. Interventions include pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic management. First-line therapy for depression and anxiety is a combination of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and cognitive behavioral therapy.¹⁷ In addition, providers can direct patients to online resources such as the NPF website, where patients with psoriasis can access information about the signs and symptoms of mood disorders and contact the patient navigation center for further help.¹⁸

Social Functioning

Occupational Prevalence
The NPF found that 92% of patients with psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) surveyed between 2003 and 2011 cited their psoriasis as reason for unemployment.² In a survey of 43 patients asked about social and occupational functioning using the social and occupational assessment scale, 62.5% of psoriatic patients reported distress at work and 51.1% reported decreased efficiency at work.¹⁹ A national online survey that was conducted in France and issued to patients with and without psoriasis assessed overall QOL and work productivity using the work productivity and activity impairment questionnaire for psoriasis (WPAI-PSO). Of 714 patients with psoriasis and PsA, the latter had a 57.6% decrease in work productivity over 7 days compared to 27.9% in controls (P<.05).²⁰ Occupational impairment leads to lost wages and hinders advancement, further exacerbating the psychosocial burden of psoriasis.²¹

Occupational Assessment
Formal assessment of occupational function can be done with the WPAI-PSO, a 6-question valid instrument.²² Providers may look for risk factors associated with greater loss in work productivity to help identify and offer support for patients. Patients with increased severity of itching, pain, and scaling experienced a greater decrease in work productivity.^21,23 Patients with PsA warrant early detection and treatment because they experience greater physical restraints that can interfere with work activities. Of the 459 psoriatic patients without a prior diagnosis of PsA who filled out the PsA screening and evaluation questionnaire, 144 (31.4%) received a score of 44 or higher and were referred to rheumatology for further evaluation with the classification criteria for PsA. Nine percent of patients failed to be screened and remained undiagnosed with PsA.²⁴ In a study using the health assessment questionnaire to assess 400 patients with PsA, those with worse physical function due to joint pain and stiffness were less likely to remain employed (OR: 0.56; P=.02).²⁵

Occupational Management
Identifying and coordinating symptoms of PsA between dermatology and rheumatology is beneficial for patients who experience debilitating symptoms. There are a variety of treatments available for PsA. According to the European League Against Rheumatism 2015 guidelines developed from expert opinion and systematic reviews for PsA management, there are 4 phases of treatment, with reassessment every 3 to 6 months for effectiveness of therapy.^26,27 Phase I involves initiating nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with or without glucocorticoid injections. Phase II involves synthetic disease-modifying drugs, including methotrexate, leflunomide, sulfasalazine, or cyclosporine. Phase III involves adding a second synthetic disease-modifying drug or starting a biologic, such as an anti–tumor necrosis factor, IL-12/IL-23, or IL-17 inhibitor. Phase IV involves switching to a different drug in either aforementioned class.^26,27 Treatment with biologics improves work productivity as assessed by WPAI-PSO for psoriasis and PsA.^28-30 Encouraging patients to speak up in the workplace and request small accommodations such as timely breaks or ergonomic chairs can help patients feel more comfortable and supported in the work environment.¹⁸ Patients who felt supported at work were more likely to remain employed.²⁵

Interpersonal Relationships Prevalence
Misinformation about psoriasis, fear of rejection, and feelings of isolation may contribute to interpersonal conflict. Patients have feelings of shame and self-consciousness that hinder them from engaging in social activities and seeking out relationships.³¹ Twenty-nine percent of patients feel that psoriasis has interfered with establishing relationships because of negative self-esteem associated with the disease,³² and 26.3% have experienced people avoiding physical contact.³³ Family and spouses of patients with psoriasis may be secondarily affected due to economic and emotional distress. Ninety-eight percent of family members of psoriatic patients experienced emotional distress and 54% experienced the burden of care.³⁴ In a survey of 63 relatives and partners of patients with psoriasis, 57% experienced psychological distress, including anxiety and worry over a psoriatic patient’s future.³⁵

Interpersonal Relationships Assessment
Current available tools, including the DLQI and short form health survey, measure overall QOL, including social functioning, but may not be practical in a clinic setting. Although no quick-screening test to assess for this domain exists, providers are encouraged to ask patients about disease impact on interpersonal relationships. The family DLQI questionnaire, adapted from the DLQI, may help physicians and social workers evaluate the burden on a patient’s family members.³⁴

Interpersonal Relationships Management
It may be difficult for providers to address problems with interpersonal relationships without accessible tools. Patients may not be accompanied by family or friends during appointments, and it is difficult to screen for these issues during visits. Providers may offer resources such as the NPF website, which provides information about support groups. It also provides tips on dating and connecting to others in the community who share similar experiences.¹⁸ Encouraging patients to seek family or couples therapy also may be beneficial. Increased social support can lead to better QOL and fewer depressive symptoms.³⁶

Sexual Functioning Prevalence
Psoriasis affects both physical and psychological components of sexual function. Among 3485 patients with skin conditions who were surveyed about sexual function, 34% of psoriatic patients reported that psoriasis interfered with sexual functioning at least to a certain degree.³⁷ Sexual impairment was strongly associated with depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation; 24% of depressed patients and 20% of anxious patients experienced sexual problems a lot or very much, based on the DLQI.³⁷ Depending on the questionnaire used, the prevalence of sexual dysfunction due to psoriasis ranged from 35.5% to 71.3%.³⁸ In an observational cohort study of 158 participants (n=79 psoriasis patients and n=79 controls), 34.2% of patients with psoriasis experienced erectile dysfunction compared to 17.7% of controls.³⁹ Forty-two percent of psoriatic patients with genital involvement reported dyspareunia, 32% reported worsening of genital psoriasis after intercourse, and 43% reported decreased frequency of intercourse.⁴⁰

Sexual Functioning Assessment
The Skindex-29, DLQI, and psoriasis disability index are available QOL tools that include one question evaluating difficulties with sexual function. The Massachusetts General Hospital sexual functioning questionnaire is a 5-item validated tool that specifically assesses sexual dysfunction.⁴¹ Distribution of lesions can help identify patients who are more likely to experience sexual dysfunction. In 160 patients who completed the questionnaire and self-reported psoriasis area and severity index, lesions on the abdomen, genitals, lumbar region, and buttocks were associated with worse sexual functioning (OR: 7.9; 95% CI, 2.3-33.4; P<.05).⁴² Dermatologists could assess for sexual problems using either formal questionnaires or direct conversations during the routine psoriasis visit, as patients may be suffering in silence due to this sensitive topic.

Sexual Functioning Management
Better disease control leads to improved sexual function, as patients experience fewer feelings of shame, anxiety, and depression, as well as improvement of physical symptoms that can interfere with sexual functioning.^38,43,44 Reducing friction, warmth, and moisture, as well as avoiding tight clothing, can help those with genital psoriasis. Patients are advised to reapply topical medications after sexual intercourse. Patients also can apply makeup to disguise psoriasis and help reduce feelings of self-consciousness that can impede sexual intimacy.¹⁸

Comment

The psychosocial burden of psoriasis penetrates many facets of patient lives. Psoriasis can invoke feelings of shame and embarrassment that are worsened by the public’s misconceptions about psoriasis, resulting in serious mental health issues that can cause even greater disability. Depression and anxiety are prevalent in patients with psoriasis. The characteristic symptoms of pain and pruritus along with psychiatric comorbidities can have an underestimated impact on daily activities, including employment, interpersonal relationships, and sexual function. Such dysfunctions have serious implications toward wages, professional advancement, social support, and overall QOL.

Dermatology providers play an important role in screening for these problems through validated questionnaires and identifying risks. Simple screening questions such as the PHQ-9 can be beneficial and feasible during dermatology visits. Screening for PsA can help patients avoid problems at work. Sexual dysfunction is a sensitive topic; however, providers can use a 1-question screen from valid questionnaires and inquire about the location of lesions as opportunities to address this issue.

Interventions lead to better disease control, which concurrently improves overall QOL. These interventions depend on both patient adherence and a physician’s commitment to finding an optimal treatment regimen for each individual. Medical management; coordinating care; developing treatment plans with psychiatry, rheumatology, and primary care providers; and psychological counseling and services may be necessary and beneficial (Table). Offering accessible resources such as the NPF website helps patients access information outside the clinic when it is not feasible to address all these concerns in a single visit. Psoriasis requires more than just medical management; it requires dermatology providers to use a multidisciplinary approach to address the psychosocial aspects of the disease.

Conclusion

The psychosocial burden of psoriasis is immense. Stigma, public misconception, mental health concerns, and occupational and interpersonal difficulty are the basis of disease burden. Providers play a vital role in assessing the effect psoriasis has on different areas of patients’ lives and providing appropriate interventions and resources to reduce disease burden.

‌

‌

‌

‌

‌

‌

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is most often treated with mid-potency topical corticosteroids.^1,2 Although this option is effective, not all patients respond to treatment, and those who do may lose efficacy over time, a phenomenon known as tachyphylaxis. The pathophysiology of tachyphylaxis to topical corticosteroids has been ascribed to loss of corticosteroid receptor function,³ but the evidence is weak.^3,4 Patients with severe treatment-resistant AD improve when treated with mid-potency topical steroids in an inpatient setting; therefore, treatment resistance to topical corticosteroids may be largely due to poor adherence.⁵

Patients with treatment-resistant AD generally improve when treated with topical corticosteroids under conditions designed to promote treatment adherence, but this improvement often is reported for study groups, not individual patients. Focusing on group data may not give a clear picture of what is happening at the individual level. In this study, we evaluated changes at an individual level to determine how frequently AD patients who were previously treated with topical corticosteroids unsuccessfully would respond to desoximetasone spray 0.25% under conditions designed to promote good adherence over a 7-day period.

Methods

This open-label, randomized, single-center clinical study included 12 patients with AD who were previously unsuccessfully treated with topical corticosteroids in the Department of Dermatology at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center (Winston-Salem, North Carolina)(Table 1). The study was approved by the local institutional review board.

Inclusion criteria included men and women 18 years or older at baseline who had AD that was considered amenable to therapy with topical corticosteroids by the clinician and were able to comply with the study protocol (Figure). Written informed consent also was obtained from each patient. Women who were pregnant, breastfeeding, or unwilling to practice birth control during participation in the study were excluded. Other exclusion criteria included presence of a condition that in the opinion of the investigator would compromise the safety of the patient or quality of data as well as patients with no access to a telephone throughout the day. Patients diagnosed with conditions affecting adherence to treatment (eg, dementia, Alzheimer disease), those with a history of allergy or sensitivity to corticosteroids, and those with a history of drug hypersensitivity were excluded from the study.

Results

Twelve AD patients who were previously unsuccessfully treated with topical corticosteroids were recruited for the study. Six patients were randomized to the intervention group and 6 were randomized to the control group. Fifty percent of patients were black, 50% were women, and the average age was 50.4 years. All 12 patients completed the study.

At the end of the study, most patients showed improvement in all evaluation parameters (eFigure). All 12 patients showed improvement in pruritus visual analog scores; 83.3% (10/12) showed improved EASI scores, 75.0% (9/12) showed improved TLSS scores, and 58.3% (7/12) showed improved IGA scores (Tables 2–5). Patients who received telephone calls in the intervention group showed greater improvement compared to those in the control group, except for pruritus; the mean reduction in pruritus was 76.9% in the intervention group versus 87.0% in the control group. The mean improvement in EASI score was 46.9% in the intervention group versus 21.1% in the control group. The mean improvement in TLSS score was 38.3% in the intervention group versus 9.7% in the control group. The mean improvement in IGA score was 45.8% in the intervention group versus 4.2% in the control group. Only one patient in the control group (patient 8) showed lower EASI, TLSS, and IGA scores at baseline.

Comment

Although topical corticosteroids are the mainstay for treatment of AD, many patients report treatment resistance after a period of a few doses or longer.^6-9 There is strong evidence demonstrating rapid corticosteroid receptor downregulation in tissues after corticosteroid therapy, which is the accepted mechanism for tachyphylaxis, but the timing of this effect does not match up with clinical experiences. The physiologic significance of corticosteroid agonist-induced receptor downregulation is unknown and may not have any considerable effect on corticosteroid efficacy.³ A systematic review by Taheri et al³ on the development of resistance to topical corticosteroids proposed 2 theories for the underlying pathogenesis of tachyphylaxis: (1) long-term patient nonadherence, and (2) the initial maximal response during the first few weeks of therapy eventually plateaus. Because corticosteroids may plateau after a certain number of doses, natural disease flare-ups during this period may give the wrong impression of tachyphylaxis.¹⁰ The treatment “resistance” reported by the patients in our study may have been due to this plateau effect or to poor adherence.

Our finding that nearly all patients had rapid improvement of AD with the topical corticosteroid is not definitive proof but supports the notion that tachyphylaxis is largely mediated by poor adherence to treatment. Patients rapidly improved over the short study period. The short duration of treatment and multiple visits over the study period were designed to help ensure patient adherence. Rapid improvement in AD when topical corticosteroids are used should be expected, as AD patients have rapid improvement with application of topical corticosteroids in inpatient settings.^11,12

Poor adherence to topical medication is common. In a Danish study, 99 of 322 patients (31%) did not redeem their AD prescriptions.¹³ In a single-center, 5-day, prospective study evaluating the use of fluocinonide cream 0.1% for treatment of children and adults with AD, the median percentage of prescribed doses taken was 40%, according to objective electronic monitors, even though patients reported 100% adherence in their medication diaries.Better adherence was seen on day 1 of treatment in which 66.6% (6/9) of patients adhered to their treatment strategy versus day 5 in which only 11.1% (1/9) of patients used their medication.¹

Topical corticosteroids are safe and efficacious if used appropriately; however, patients commonly express fear and anxiety about using them. Topical corticosteroid phobia may stem from a misconception that these products carry the same adverse effects as their oral and systemic counterparts, which may be perpetuated by the media.¹ Of 200 dermatology patients surveyed, 72.5% expressed concern about using topical corticosteroids on themselves or their children’s skin, and 24% of these patients stated they were noncompliant with their medication because of these worries. Almost 50% of patients requested prescriptions for corticosteroid-sparing medications such as tacrolimus.¹ Patient education is important to help ensure treatment adherence. Other factors that can affect treatment adherence include forgetfulness; the chronic nature of AD; the need for ongoing application of topical treatments; prohibitive costs of some topical agents; and complexities in coordinating school, work, and family plans with the treatment regimen.²

We attempted to ensure good treatment adherence in our study by calling the patients in the intervention group twice daily. The mean improvement in EASI, TLSS, and IGA scores was higher in the intervention group versus the control group, which suggests that patient reminders have at least some benefit. Because AD treatment resistance appears more closely tied to nonadherence rather than loss of medication efficacy, it seems prudent to focus on interventions that would improve treatment adherence; however, such interventions generally are not well tested. Recommended interventions have included educating patients about the side effects of topical corticosteroids, avoiding use of medical jargon, and taking patient vehicle preference into account when prescribing treatments.⁸ Patients should be scheduled for a return visit within 1 to 2 weeks, as early return visits can augment treatment adherence.¹⁴ At the return visit, there can be a more detailed discussion of long-term management and side effects.⁸

Limitations of our study included a small sample size and brief treatment duration. Even though the patients had previously reported treatment failure with topical corticosteroids, all demonstrated improvement in only 1 week with a potent topical corticosteroid. The treatment resistance that initially was reported likely was due to poor adherence, but it is possible for AD patients to be resistant to treatment with topical corticosteroids due to allergic contact dermatitis. Patients could theoretically be allergic to components of the vehicle used in topical corticosteroids, which could aggravate their dermatitis; however, this effect seems unlikely in our patient population, as all the patients in our study showed improvement following treatment. Another study limitation was that adherence was not measured. The frequent follow-up visits were designed to encourage treatment adherence, but adherence was not specifically assessed. Although patients were encouraged to only use the desoximetasone spray during the study, it is not known whether patients used other products.

Conclusion

Some AD patients exhibit apparent decreased efficacy of topical corticosteroids over time, but this tachyphylaxis phenomenon is more likely due to poor treatment adherence than to loss of corticosteroid responsiveness. In our study, AD patients who reported treatment failure with topical corticosteroids improved rapidly with topical corticosteroids under conditions designed to promote good adherence to treatment. The majority of patients improved in all 4 parameters used for evaluating disease severity, with 100% of patients reporting improvement in pruritus. Intervention to improve treatment adherence may lead to better health outcomes. When AD appears resistant to topical corticosteroids, addressing adherence issues may be critical.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is most often treated with mid-potency topical corticosteroids.^1,2 Although this option is effective, not all patients respond to treatment, and those who do may lose efficacy over time, a phenomenon known as tachyphylaxis. The pathophysiology of tachyphylaxis to topical corticosteroids has been ascribed to loss of corticosteroid receptor function,³ but the evidence is weak.^3,4 Patients with severe treatment-resistant AD improve when treated with mid-potency topical steroids in an inpatient setting; therefore, treatment resistance to topical corticosteroids may be largely due to poor adherence.⁵

Patients with treatment-resistant AD generally improve when treated with topical corticosteroids under conditions designed to promote treatment adherence, but this improvement often is reported for study groups, not individual patients. Focusing on group data may not give a clear picture of what is happening at the individual level. In this study, we evaluated changes at an individual level to determine how frequently AD patients who were previously treated with topical corticosteroids unsuccessfully would respond to desoximetasone spray 0.25% under conditions designed to promote good adherence over a 7-day period.

Methods

This open-label, randomized, single-center clinical study included 12 patients with AD who were previously unsuccessfully treated with topical corticosteroids in the Department of Dermatology at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center (Winston-Salem, North Carolina)(Table 1). The study was approved by the local institutional review board.

Inclusion criteria included men and women 18 years or older at baseline who had AD that was considered amenable to therapy with topical corticosteroids by the clinician and were able to comply with the study protocol (Figure). Written informed consent also was obtained from each patient. Women who were pregnant, breastfeeding, or unwilling to practice birth control during participation in the study were excluded. Other exclusion criteria included presence of a condition that in the opinion of the investigator would compromise the safety of the patient or quality of data as well as patients with no access to a telephone throughout the day. Patients diagnosed with conditions affecting adherence to treatment (eg, dementia, Alzheimer disease), those with a history of allergy or sensitivity to corticosteroids, and those with a history of drug hypersensitivity were excluded from the study.

Results

Twelve AD patients who were previously unsuccessfully treated with topical corticosteroids were recruited for the study. Six patients were randomized to the intervention group and 6 were randomized to the control group. Fifty percent of patients were black, 50% were women, and the average age was 50.4 years. All 12 patients completed the study.

At the end of the study, most patients showed improvement in all evaluation parameters (eFigure). All 12 patients showed improvement in pruritus visual analog scores; 83.3% (10/12) showed improved EASI scores, 75.0% (9/12) showed improved TLSS scores, and 58.3% (7/12) showed improved IGA scores (Tables 2–5). Patients who received telephone calls in the intervention group showed greater improvement compared to those in the control group, except for pruritus; the mean reduction in pruritus was 76.9% in the intervention group versus 87.0% in the control group. The mean improvement in EASI score was 46.9% in the intervention group versus 21.1% in the control group. The mean improvement in TLSS score was 38.3% in the intervention group versus 9.7% in the control group. The mean improvement in IGA score was 45.8% in the intervention group versus 4.2% in the control group. Only one patient in the control group (patient 8) showed lower EASI, TLSS, and IGA scores at baseline.

Comment

Although topical corticosteroids are the mainstay for treatment of AD, many patients report treatment resistance after a period of a few doses or longer.^6-9 There is strong evidence demonstrating rapid corticosteroid receptor downregulation in tissues after corticosteroid therapy, which is the accepted mechanism for tachyphylaxis, but the timing of this effect does not match up with clinical experiences. The physiologic significance of corticosteroid agonist-induced receptor downregulation is unknown and may not have any considerable effect on corticosteroid efficacy.³ A systematic review by Taheri et al³ on the development of resistance to topical corticosteroids proposed 2 theories for the underlying pathogenesis of tachyphylaxis: (1) long-term patient nonadherence, and (2) the initial maximal response during the first few weeks of therapy eventually plateaus. Because corticosteroids may plateau after a certain number of doses, natural disease flare-ups during this period may give the wrong impression of tachyphylaxis.¹⁰ The treatment “resistance” reported by the patients in our study may have been due to this plateau effect or to poor adherence.

Our finding that nearly all patients had rapid improvement of AD with the topical corticosteroid is not definitive proof but supports the notion that tachyphylaxis is largely mediated by poor adherence to treatment. Patients rapidly improved over the short study period. The short duration of treatment and multiple visits over the study period were designed to help ensure patient adherence. Rapid improvement in AD when topical corticosteroids are used should be expected, as AD patients have rapid improvement with application of topical corticosteroids in inpatient settings.^11,12

Poor adherence to topical medication is common. In a Danish study, 99 of 322 patients (31%) did not redeem their AD prescriptions.¹³ In a single-center, 5-day, prospective study evaluating the use of fluocinonide cream 0.1% for treatment of children and adults with AD, the median percentage of prescribed doses taken was 40%, according to objective electronic monitors, even though patients reported 100% adherence in their medication diaries.Better adherence was seen on day 1 of treatment in which 66.6% (6/9) of patients adhered to their treatment strategy versus day 5 in which only 11.1% (1/9) of patients used their medication.¹

Topical corticosteroids are safe and efficacious if used appropriately; however, patients commonly express fear and anxiety about using them. Topical corticosteroid phobia may stem from a misconception that these products carry the same adverse effects as their oral and systemic counterparts, which may be perpetuated by the media.¹ Of 200 dermatology patients surveyed, 72.5% expressed concern about using topical corticosteroids on themselves or their children’s skin, and 24% of these patients stated they were noncompliant with their medication because of these worries. Almost 50% of patients requested prescriptions for corticosteroid-sparing medications such as tacrolimus.¹ Patient education is important to help ensure treatment adherence. Other factors that can affect treatment adherence include forgetfulness; the chronic nature of AD; the need for ongoing application of topical treatments; prohibitive costs of some topical agents; and complexities in coordinating school, work, and family plans with the treatment regimen.²

We attempted to ensure good treatment adherence in our study by calling the patients in the intervention group twice daily. The mean improvement in EASI, TLSS, and IGA scores was higher in the intervention group versus the control group, which suggests that patient reminders have at least some benefit. Because AD treatment resistance appears more closely tied to nonadherence rather than loss of medication efficacy, it seems prudent to focus on interventions that would improve treatment adherence; however, such interventions generally are not well tested. Recommended interventions have included educating patients about the side effects of topical corticosteroids, avoiding use of medical jargon, and taking patient vehicle preference into account when prescribing treatments.⁸ Patients should be scheduled for a return visit within 1 to 2 weeks, as early return visits can augment treatment adherence.¹⁴ At the return visit, there can be a more detailed discussion of long-term management and side effects.⁸

Limitations of our study included a small sample size and brief treatment duration. Even though the patients had previously reported treatment failure with topical corticosteroids, all demonstrated improvement in only 1 week with a potent topical corticosteroid. The treatment resistance that initially was reported likely was due to poor adherence, but it is possible for AD patients to be resistant to treatment with topical corticosteroids due to allergic contact dermatitis. Patients could theoretically be allergic to components of the vehicle used in topical corticosteroids, which could aggravate their dermatitis; however, this effect seems unlikely in our patient population, as all the patients in our study showed improvement following treatment. Another study limitation was that adherence was not measured. The frequent follow-up visits were designed to encourage treatment adherence, but adherence was not specifically assessed. Although patients were encouraged to only use the desoximetasone spray during the study, it is not known whether patients used other products.

Conclusion

Some AD patients exhibit apparent decreased efficacy of topical corticosteroids over time, but this tachyphylaxis phenomenon is more likely due to poor treatment adherence than to loss of corticosteroid responsiveness. In our study, AD patients who reported treatment failure with topical corticosteroids improved rapidly with topical corticosteroids under conditions designed to promote good adherence to treatment. The majority of patients improved in all 4 parameters used for evaluating disease severity, with 100% of patients reporting improvement in pruritus. Intervention to improve treatment adherence may lead to better health outcomes. When AD appears resistant to topical corticosteroids, addressing adherence issues may be critical.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is most often treated with mid-potency topical corticosteroids.^1,2 Although this option is effective, not all patients respond to treatment, and those who do may lose efficacy over time, a phenomenon known as tachyphylaxis. The pathophysiology of tachyphylaxis to topical corticosteroids has been ascribed to loss of corticosteroid receptor function,³ but the evidence is weak.^3,4 Patients with severe treatment-resistant AD improve when treated with mid-potency topical steroids in an inpatient setting; therefore, treatment resistance to topical corticosteroids may be largely due to poor adherence.⁵

Patients with treatment-resistant AD generally improve when treated with topical corticosteroids under conditions designed to promote treatment adherence, but this improvement often is reported for study groups, not individual patients. Focusing on group data may not give a clear picture of what is happening at the individual level. In this study, we evaluated changes at an individual level to determine how frequently AD patients who were previously treated with topical corticosteroids unsuccessfully would respond to desoximetasone spray 0.25% under conditions designed to promote good adherence over a 7-day period.

Methods

This open-label, randomized, single-center clinical study included 12 patients with AD who were previously unsuccessfully treated with topical corticosteroids in the Department of Dermatology at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center (Winston-Salem, North Carolina)(Table 1). The study was approved by the local institutional review board.

Inclusion criteria included men and women 18 years or older at baseline who had AD that was considered amenable to therapy with topical corticosteroids by the clinician and were able to comply with the study protocol (Figure). Written informed consent also was obtained from each patient. Women who were pregnant, breastfeeding, or unwilling to practice birth control during participation in the study were excluded. Other exclusion criteria included presence of a condition that in the opinion of the investigator would compromise the safety of the patient or quality of data as well as patients with no access to a telephone throughout the day. Patients diagnosed with conditions affecting adherence to treatment (eg, dementia, Alzheimer disease), those with a history of allergy or sensitivity to corticosteroids, and those with a history of drug hypersensitivity were excluded from the study.

Results

Twelve AD patients who were previously unsuccessfully treated with topical corticosteroids were recruited for the study. Six patients were randomized to the intervention group and 6 were randomized to the control group. Fifty percent of patients were black, 50% were women, and the average age was 50.4 years. All 12 patients completed the study.

At the end of the study, most patients showed improvement in all evaluation parameters (eFigure). All 12 patients showed improvement in pruritus visual analog scores; 83.3% (10/12) showed improved EASI scores, 75.0% (9/12) showed improved TLSS scores, and 58.3% (7/12) showed improved IGA scores (Tables 2–5). Patients who received telephone calls in the intervention group showed greater improvement compared to those in the control group, except for pruritus; the mean reduction in pruritus was 76.9% in the intervention group versus 87.0% in the control group. The mean improvement in EASI score was 46.9% in the intervention group versus 21.1% in the control group. The mean improvement in TLSS score was 38.3% in the intervention group versus 9.7% in the control group. The mean improvement in IGA score was 45.8% in the intervention group versus 4.2% in the control group. Only one patient in the control group (patient 8) showed lower EASI, TLSS, and IGA scores at baseline.

Comment

Although topical corticosteroids are the mainstay for treatment of AD, many patients report treatment resistance after a period of a few doses or longer.^6-9 There is strong evidence demonstrating rapid corticosteroid receptor downregulation in tissues after corticosteroid therapy, which is the accepted mechanism for tachyphylaxis, but the timing of this effect does not match up with clinical experiences. The physiologic significance of corticosteroid agonist-induced receptor downregulation is unknown and may not have any considerable effect on corticosteroid efficacy.³ A systematic review by Taheri et al³ on the development of resistance to topical corticosteroids proposed 2 theories for the underlying pathogenesis of tachyphylaxis: (1) long-term patient nonadherence, and (2) the initial maximal response during the first few weeks of therapy eventually plateaus. Because corticosteroids may plateau after a certain number of doses, natural disease flare-ups during this period may give the wrong impression of tachyphylaxis.¹⁰ The treatment “resistance” reported by the patients in our study may have been due to this plateau effect or to poor adherence.

Our finding that nearly all patients had rapid improvement of AD with the topical corticosteroid is not definitive proof but supports the notion that tachyphylaxis is largely mediated by poor adherence to treatment. Patients rapidly improved over the short study period. The short duration of treatment and multiple visits over the study period were designed to help ensure patient adherence. Rapid improvement in AD when topical corticosteroids are used should be expected, as AD patients have rapid improvement with application of topical corticosteroids in inpatient settings.^11,12

Poor adherence to topical medication is common. In a Danish study, 99 of 322 patients (31%) did not redeem their AD prescriptions.¹³ In a single-center, 5-day, prospective study evaluating the use of fluocinonide cream 0.1% for treatment of children and adults with AD, the median percentage of prescribed doses taken was 40%, according to objective electronic monitors, even though patients reported 100% adherence in their medication diaries.Better adherence was seen on day 1 of treatment in which 66.6% (6/9) of patients adhered to their treatment strategy versus day 5 in which only 11.1% (1/9) of patients used their medication.¹

Topical corticosteroids are safe and efficacious if used appropriately; however, patients commonly express fear and anxiety about using them. Topical corticosteroid phobia may stem from a misconception that these products carry the same adverse effects as their oral and systemic counterparts, which may be perpetuated by the media.¹ Of 200 dermatology patients surveyed, 72.5% expressed concern about using topical corticosteroids on themselves or their children’s skin, and 24% of these patients stated they were noncompliant with their medication because of these worries. Almost 50% of patients requested prescriptions for corticosteroid-sparing medications such as tacrolimus.¹ Patient education is important to help ensure treatment adherence. Other factors that can affect treatment adherence include forgetfulness; the chronic nature of AD; the need for ongoing application of topical treatments; prohibitive costs of some topical agents; and complexities in coordinating school, work, and family plans with the treatment regimen.²

We attempted to ensure good treatment adherence in our study by calling the patients in the intervention group twice daily. The mean improvement in EASI, TLSS, and IGA scores was higher in the intervention group versus the control group, which suggests that patient reminders have at least some benefit. Because AD treatment resistance appears more closely tied to nonadherence rather than loss of medication efficacy, it seems prudent to focus on interventions that would improve treatment adherence; however, such interventions generally are not well tested. Recommended interventions have included educating patients about the side effects of topical corticosteroids, avoiding use of medical jargon, and taking patient vehicle preference into account when prescribing treatments.⁸ Patients should be scheduled for a return visit within 1 to 2 weeks, as early return visits can augment treatment adherence.¹⁴ At the return visit, there can be a more detailed discussion of long-term management and side effects.⁸

Limitations of our study included a small sample size and brief treatment duration. Even though the patients had previously reported treatment failure with topical corticosteroids, all demonstrated improvement in only 1 week with a potent topical corticosteroid. The treatment resistance that initially was reported likely was due to poor adherence, but it is possible for AD patients to be resistant to treatment with topical corticosteroids due to allergic contact dermatitis. Patients could theoretically be allergic to components of the vehicle used in topical corticosteroids, which could aggravate their dermatitis; however, this effect seems unlikely in our patient population, as all the patients in our study showed improvement following treatment. Another study limitation was that adherence was not measured. The frequent follow-up visits were designed to encourage treatment adherence, but adherence was not specifically assessed. Although patients were encouraged to only use the desoximetasone spray during the study, it is not known whether patients used other products.

Conclusion

Some AD patients exhibit apparent decreased efficacy of topical corticosteroids over time, but this tachyphylaxis phenomenon is more likely due to poor treatment adherence than to loss of corticosteroid responsiveness. In our study, AD patients who reported treatment failure with topical corticosteroids improved rapidly with topical corticosteroids under conditions designed to promote good adherence to treatment. The majority of patients improved in all 4 parameters used for evaluating disease severity, with 100% of patients reporting improvement in pruritus. Intervention to improve treatment adherence may lead to better health outcomes. When AD appears resistant to topical corticosteroids, addressing adherence issues may be critical.

Rosacea is a chronic skin condition that can be classified into 4 subtypes: erythematotelangiectatic, papulopustular, phymatous, and ocular. Erythematotelangiectatic rosacea is characterized by redness of the face and excessive blushing. Papulopustular rosacea is a more severe form of disease that is characterized by papules and pustules of the central face. If left untreated, these subtypes may progress to phymatous rosacea, which is characterized by skin thickening, fibrosis, and cosmetic disfigurement. Ocular rosacea is characterized by redness and irritation of the eyes.¹ Rosacea patients often are burdened with embarrassment, social anxiety, and psychiatric comorbidities.

The Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) is a validated and reliable self-administered tool for diagnosis of depression and designation of depression severity. This instrument could prove useful in screening for depression in rosacea patients given the high incidence of psychiatric comorbidities in this patient population.² The PHQ-9 consists of 9 questions that assess for criteria used to define depressive disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition).³ The questionnaire is brief, easy to administer, and has 88% specificity and sensitivity.⁴

Other studies have evaluated the relationship between rosacea and psychiatric illness, but the PHQ-9 was not used as a screening tool.^7,8 Rosacea patients are at increased risk for having psychiatrist-diagnosed depression.⁵ In one assessment, a positive correlation between rosacea and psychiatric illness was noted using the Dermatology Life Quality Index, the rejection scale of the Questionnaire on Experience with Skin Complaints, and the German version of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.⁶ Interpretation of Rosacea Quality of Life and Dermatology Life Quality Index scores indicated that rosacea has a negative impact on quality of life.⁷

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between self-assessed rosacea severity scores and level of depression using the validated rosacea self-assessment tool and the PHQ-9 questionnaire, respectively.

Methods

Study Population
Study participants were adult patients from the Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center (Winston-Salem, North Carolina) dermatology clinic from January 2011 to December 2014 who had received a diagnosis of rosacea (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision [ICD-9] code 695.3) from a Wake Forest dermatologist. Institutional review board approval was obtained prior to initiation of the study. Data collection occurred from October 2014 through February 2015. A total of 478 patients met criteria for participation in the study and were identified from the Wake Forest Baptist Hospital Transitional Data Warehouse and the electronic medical record. Because rosacea typically is not diagnosed in children and the data measures are not validated in children, this demographic group was excluded from participation.

Of 478 eligible patients who were invited to participate via mail or telephone, 46 completed the rosacea self-assessment tool and PHQ-9 survey in person. A total of 432 patients were mailed a presurvey recruitment letter notifying them that they would be receiving a survey in the mail unless they contacted the study team to decline participation. An email address and telephone number for the study team was provided. Twenty patients declined to participate in the study; surveys were then mailed to the remaining 412 patients. Sixteen of the mailed surveys were returned by the post office due to an incorrect address. A total of 195 surveys (149 through mail and 46 in person) were completed and analyzed. All survey respondents completed the validated rosacea self-assessment tool (Figure 1); of them, 183 completed the PHQ-9. Participants in this study received compensation for travel expenses and time.

Results

There is a direct relationship between rosacea severity and depression when comparing across the following levels of depression: nondepressed, minimal depression symptoms, minor depression, major depression (moderate), and major depression (severe)(P=.006; F=5.18; N=183)(Figures 2 and 3). There was no statistically significant difference in rosacea severity between the moderate and severe major depression groups.

Most patients reported they were nondepressed (68.9%). As measured by the PHQ-9, 31.1% of patients experienced some level of depression: 21.9% reported minimal depression symptoms, 7.1% reported minor depression, 1.1% reported major depression (moderate), and 1.1% reported major depression (severe)(Table).

Comment

There is a direct relationship between rosacea severity and level of depression. In our study, nearly one-third of patients reported some degree of depression. The reason for this correlation may be due to disease stigmatization and decreased quality of life due to the somatic symptoms of rosacea. Our study reinforced the results of other studies evaluating the psychosocial impact of rosacea.^8,9 Depression is associated with poor treatment adherence and poor outcomes in rosacea patients; therefore, depression may serve as an important outcome measure.¹⁰ The psychosocial impact of rosacea can be severe, but with disease improvement, there often is an improvement in the patient’s psychosocial status.⁷

There are several limitations to our study. The study population consisted of patients at a university dermatology clinic who may not be representative of patients in the general population; however, our hospital system does not require referral and provides care to a large percentage of the surrounding community.

Clinical implementation of the validated rosacea self-assessment tool and PHQ-9 may have several benefits. Patient-assessed rosacea severity and psychosocial impact obtained via use of these tools would provide physicians with information to fine-tune rosacea treatment regimens. Patients with the greatest social impact may require a more aggressive treatment approach. Early detection of depression in the rosacea population is important in informing treatment strategy and improving outcomes. Physicians should pay close attention to signs of depression in rosacea patients and determine if psychiatric treatment or referral for psychiatric evaluation is indicated. The correlation between rosacea and depression underscores the importance of treating this highly impactful disease; however, the low number of responders from the major depression (moderate) subgroup prevented us from making any strong conclusion about this specific subgroup.

Rosacea is a chronic skin condition that can be classified into 4 subtypes: erythematotelangiectatic, papulopustular, phymatous, and ocular. Erythematotelangiectatic rosacea is characterized by redness of the face and excessive blushing. Papulopustular rosacea is a more severe form of disease that is characterized by papules and pustules of the central face. If left untreated, these subtypes may progress to phymatous rosacea, which is characterized by skin thickening, fibrosis, and cosmetic disfigurement. Ocular rosacea is characterized by redness and irritation of the eyes.¹ Rosacea patients often are burdened with embarrassment, social anxiety, and psychiatric comorbidities.

The Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) is a validated and reliable self-administered tool for diagnosis of depression and designation of depression severity. This instrument could prove useful in screening for depression in rosacea patients given the high incidence of psychiatric comorbidities in this patient population.² The PHQ-9 consists of 9 questions that assess for criteria used to define depressive disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition).³ The questionnaire is brief, easy to administer, and has 88% specificity and sensitivity.⁴

Other studies have evaluated the relationship between rosacea and psychiatric illness, but the PHQ-9 was not used as a screening tool.^7,8 Rosacea patients are at increased risk for having psychiatrist-diagnosed depression.⁵ In one assessment, a positive correlation between rosacea and psychiatric illness was noted using the Dermatology Life Quality Index, the rejection scale of the Questionnaire on Experience with Skin Complaints, and the German version of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.⁶ Interpretation of Rosacea Quality of Life and Dermatology Life Quality Index scores indicated that rosacea has a negative impact on quality of life.⁷

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between self-assessed rosacea severity scores and level of depression using the validated rosacea self-assessment tool and the PHQ-9 questionnaire, respectively.

Methods

Study Population
Study participants were adult patients from the Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center (Winston-Salem, North Carolina) dermatology clinic from January 2011 to December 2014 who had received a diagnosis of rosacea (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision [ICD-9] code 695.3) from a Wake Forest dermatologist. Institutional review board approval was obtained prior to initiation of the study. Data collection occurred from October 2014 through February 2015. A total of 478 patients met criteria for participation in the study and were identified from the Wake Forest Baptist Hospital Transitional Data Warehouse and the electronic medical record. Because rosacea typically is not diagnosed in children and the data measures are not validated in children, this demographic group was excluded from participation.

Of 478 eligible patients who were invited to participate via mail or telephone, 46 completed the rosacea self-assessment tool and PHQ-9 survey in person. A total of 432 patients were mailed a presurvey recruitment letter notifying them that they would be receiving a survey in the mail unless they contacted the study team to decline participation. An email address and telephone number for the study team was provided. Twenty patients declined to participate in the study; surveys were then mailed to the remaining 412 patients. Sixteen of the mailed surveys were returned by the post office due to an incorrect address. A total of 195 surveys (149 through mail and 46 in person) were completed and analyzed. All survey respondents completed the validated rosacea self-assessment tool (Figure 1); of them, 183 completed the PHQ-9. Participants in this study received compensation for travel expenses and time.

Results

There is a direct relationship between rosacea severity and depression when comparing across the following levels of depression: nondepressed, minimal depression symptoms, minor depression, major depression (moderate), and major depression (severe)(P=.006; F=5.18; N=183)(Figures 2 and 3). There was no statistically significant difference in rosacea severity between the moderate and severe major depression groups.

Most patients reported they were nondepressed (68.9%). As measured by the PHQ-9, 31.1% of patients experienced some level of depression: 21.9% reported minimal depression symptoms, 7.1% reported minor depression, 1.1% reported major depression (moderate), and 1.1% reported major depression (severe)(Table).

Comment

There is a direct relationship between rosacea severity and level of depression. In our study, nearly one-third of patients reported some degree of depression. The reason for this correlation may be due to disease stigmatization and decreased quality of life due to the somatic symptoms of rosacea. Our study reinforced the results of other studies evaluating the psychosocial impact of rosacea.^8,9 Depression is associated with poor treatment adherence and poor outcomes in rosacea patients; therefore, depression may serve as an important outcome measure.¹⁰ The psychosocial impact of rosacea can be severe, but with disease improvement, there often is an improvement in the patient’s psychosocial status.⁷

There are several limitations to our study. The study population consisted of patients at a university dermatology clinic who may not be representative of patients in the general population; however, our hospital system does not require referral and provides care to a large percentage of the surrounding community.

Clinical implementation of the validated rosacea self-assessment tool and PHQ-9 may have several benefits. Patient-assessed rosacea severity and psychosocial impact obtained via use of these tools would provide physicians with information to fine-tune rosacea treatment regimens. Patients with the greatest social impact may require a more aggressive treatment approach. Early detection of depression in the rosacea population is important in informing treatment strategy and improving outcomes. Physicians should pay close attention to signs of depression in rosacea patients and determine if psychiatric treatment or referral for psychiatric evaluation is indicated. The correlation between rosacea and depression underscores the importance of treating this highly impactful disease; however, the low number of responders from the major depression (moderate) subgroup prevented us from making any strong conclusion about this specific subgroup.

Rosacea is a chronic skin condition that can be classified into 4 subtypes: erythematotelangiectatic, papulopustular, phymatous, and ocular. Erythematotelangiectatic rosacea is characterized by redness of the face and excessive blushing. Papulopustular rosacea is a more severe form of disease that is characterized by papules and pustules of the central face. If left untreated, these subtypes may progress to phymatous rosacea, which is characterized by skin thickening, fibrosis, and cosmetic disfigurement. Ocular rosacea is characterized by redness and irritation of the eyes.¹ Rosacea patients often are burdened with embarrassment, social anxiety, and psychiatric comorbidities.

The Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) is a validated and reliable self-administered tool for diagnosis of depression and designation of depression severity. This instrument could prove useful in screening for depression in rosacea patients given the high incidence of psychiatric comorbidities in this patient population.² The PHQ-9 consists of 9 questions that assess for criteria used to define depressive disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition).³ The questionnaire is brief, easy to administer, and has 88% specificity and sensitivity.⁴

Other studies have evaluated the relationship between rosacea and psychiatric illness, but the PHQ-9 was not used as a screening tool.^7,8 Rosacea patients are at increased risk for having psychiatrist-diagnosed depression.⁵ In one assessment, a positive correlation between rosacea and psychiatric illness was noted using the Dermatology Life Quality Index, the rejection scale of the Questionnaire on Experience with Skin Complaints, and the German version of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.⁶ Interpretation of Rosacea Quality of Life and Dermatology Life Quality Index scores indicated that rosacea has a negative impact on quality of life.⁷

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between self-assessed rosacea severity scores and level of depression using the validated rosacea self-assessment tool and the PHQ-9 questionnaire, respectively.

Methods

Study Population
Study participants were adult patients from the Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center (Winston-Salem, North Carolina) dermatology clinic from January 2011 to December 2014 who had received a diagnosis of rosacea (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision [ICD-9] code 695.3) from a Wake Forest dermatologist. Institutional review board approval was obtained prior to initiation of the study. Data collection occurred from October 2014 through February 2015. A total of 478 patients met criteria for participation in the study and were identified from the Wake Forest Baptist Hospital Transitional Data Warehouse and the electronic medical record. Because rosacea typically is not diagnosed in children and the data measures are not validated in children, this demographic group was excluded from participation.

Of 478 eligible patients who were invited to participate via mail or telephone, 46 completed the rosacea self-assessment tool and PHQ-9 survey in person. A total of 432 patients were mailed a presurvey recruitment letter notifying them that they would be receiving a survey in the mail unless they contacted the study team to decline participation. An email address and telephone number for the study team was provided. Twenty patients declined to participate in the study; surveys were then mailed to the remaining 412 patients. Sixteen of the mailed surveys were returned by the post office due to an incorrect address. A total of 195 surveys (149 through mail and 46 in person) were completed and analyzed. All survey respondents completed the validated rosacea self-assessment tool (Figure 1); of them, 183 completed the PHQ-9. Participants in this study received compensation for travel expenses and time.

Results

There is a direct relationship between rosacea severity and depression when comparing across the following levels of depression: nondepressed, minimal depression symptoms, minor depression, major depression (moderate), and major depression (severe)(P=.006; F=5.18; N=183)(Figures 2 and 3). There was no statistically significant difference in rosacea severity between the moderate and severe major depression groups.

Most patients reported they were nondepressed (68.9%). As measured by the PHQ-9, 31.1% of patients experienced some level of depression: 21.9% reported minimal depression symptoms, 7.1% reported minor depression, 1.1% reported major depression (moderate), and 1.1% reported major depression (severe)(Table).

Comment

There is a direct relationship between rosacea severity and level of depression. In our study, nearly one-third of patients reported some degree of depression. The reason for this correlation may be due to disease stigmatization and decreased quality of life due to the somatic symptoms of rosacea. Our study reinforced the results of other studies evaluating the psychosocial impact of rosacea.^8,9 Depression is associated with poor treatment adherence and poor outcomes in rosacea patients; therefore, depression may serve as an important outcome measure.¹⁰ The psychosocial impact of rosacea can be severe, but with disease improvement, there often is an improvement in the patient’s psychosocial status.⁷

There are several limitations to our study. The study population consisted of patients at a university dermatology clinic who may not be representative of patients in the general population; however, our hospital system does not require referral and provides care to a large percentage of the surrounding community.

Clinical implementation of the validated rosacea self-assessment tool and PHQ-9 may have several benefits. Patient-assessed rosacea severity and psychosocial impact obtained via use of these tools would provide physicians with information to fine-tune rosacea treatment regimens. Patients with the greatest social impact may require a more aggressive treatment approach. Early detection of depression in the rosacea population is important in informing treatment strategy and improving outcomes. Physicians should pay close attention to signs of depression in rosacea patients and determine if psychiatric treatment or referral for psychiatric evaluation is indicated. The correlation between rosacea and depression underscores the importance of treating this highly impactful disease; however, the low number of responders from the major depression (moderate) subgroup prevented us from making any strong conclusion about this specific subgroup.

Growing incentives to control health care costs may cause accountable care organizations (ACOs) to reconsider how diseases are best managed. Few studies have examined the cost difference between primary care providers (PCPs) and specialists in managing the same disease. Limited data have suggested that management of some diseases by a PCP may be less costly compared to a specialist^1,2; however, it is not clear if this finding extends to skin disease. This study sought to assess the cost of seeing a dermatologist versus a PCP for diagnosis of the common skin diseases psoriasis and rosacea.

Methods

Patient data were obtained from the Humana database, a large commercial data set for claims and reimbursed costs encompassing 18,162,539 patients covered between January 2007 and December 2014. Our study population consisted of 3,944,465 patients with claims that included International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9), codes for dermatological diagnoses (680.0–709.9). We searched by ICD-9 code for US patients with primary diagnoses of psoriasis (696.1) and rosacea (695.3). We narrowed the search to include patients aged 30 to 64 years, as the diagnoses for these diseases are most common in patients older than 30 years. Patients who were older than 64 years were not included in the study, as most are covered by Medicare and therefore costs covered by Humana in this age group would not be as representative as in younger age groups. Total and average diagnosis-related costs per patient were compared between dermatologists and PCPs. Diagnosis-related costs encompassed physician reimbursement; laboratory and imaging costs, including skin biopsies; inpatient hospitalization cost; and any other charge that could be coded or billed by providers and reimbursed by the insurance company. To be eligible for reimbursement from Humana, dermatologists and PCPs must be registered with the insurer according to specialty board certification and practice credentialing, and they are reimbursed differently based on specialty. Drug costs, which would possibly skew the data toward providers using more expensive systemic medications (ie, dermatologists), were not included in this study, as the discussion is better reserved for long-term management of disease rather than diagnosis-related costs. All diagnoses of psoriasis were included in the study, which likely includes all severities of psoriasis, though we did not have the ability to further break down these diagnoses by severity.

Results

We identified 30,217 psoriasis patients and 37,561 rosacea patients. Of those patients with a primary diagnosis of psoriasis, 26,112 (86%) were seen by a dermatologist and 4105 (14%) were seen by a PCP (Table). Of those patients with a primary diagnosis of rosacea, 34,694 (92%) were seen by a dermatologist and 2867 (8%) were seen by a PCP (Table). There was little difference in the average diagnosis-related cost per patient for psoriasis in males (dermatologists, $638; PCPs, $657) versus females (dermatologists, $592; PCPs, $586) or between specialties (Figure). Findings were similar for rosacea in males (dermatologists, $179; PCPs, $168) versus females (dermatologists, $157; PCPs, $161). For these skin diseases, it was concluded that it is not more cost-effective to be diagnosed by a PCP versus a dermatologist.

Comment

For the management of common skin disorders such as psoriasis and rosacea, there is little cost difference in seeing a dermatologist versus a PCP. Through extensive training and repeated exposure to many skin diseases, dermatologists are expected to be more comfortable in diagnosing and managing psoriasis and rosacea. Compared to PCPs, dermatologists have demonstrated increased diagnostic accuracy and efficiency when examining pigmented lesions and other dermatologic diseases in several studies.^3-6 Although the current study shows that diagnosis-related costs for psoriasis and rosacea are essentially equal between dermatologists and PCPs, it actually may be less expensive for patients to see a dermatologist, as unnecessary tests, biopsies, or medications are more likely to be ordered/prescribed when there is less clinical diagnostic certainty.^7,8 Additionally, seeing a PCP for diagnosis of a skin disease may be inefficient if subsequent referral to a dermatologist is needed, a common scenario that occurs when patients see a PCP for skin conditions.⁹

Our study had limitations, which is typical of a study using a claims database. We used ICD-9 codes recorded in patients’ medical claims to determine diagnosis of psoriasis and rosacea; therefore, our study and data are subject to coding errors. We could not assess the severity of disease, only the presence of disease. Further confirmation of diagnosis could have been made through searching for a second ICD-9 code in the patient’s history. Our data also are from a limited time period and may not represent costs from other time periods.

Conclusion

Given the lack of cost difference between both specialties, we conclude that ACOs should consider encouraging patients to seek care for dermatologic diseases by dermatologists who generally are more accurate and efficient skin diagnosticians, particularly if there is a shortage of PCPs within the ACO network.

Growing incentives to control health care costs may cause accountable care organizations (ACOs) to reconsider how diseases are best managed. Few studies have examined the cost difference between primary care providers (PCPs) and specialists in managing the same disease. Limited data have suggested that management of some diseases by a PCP may be less costly compared to a specialist^1,2; however, it is not clear if this finding extends to skin disease. This study sought to assess the cost of seeing a dermatologist versus a PCP for diagnosis of the common skin diseases psoriasis and rosacea.

Methods

Patient data were obtained from the Humana database, a large commercial data set for claims and reimbursed costs encompassing 18,162,539 patients covered between January 2007 and December 2014. Our study population consisted of 3,944,465 patients with claims that included International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9), codes for dermatological diagnoses (680.0–709.9). We searched by ICD-9 code for US patients with primary diagnoses of psoriasis (696.1) and rosacea (695.3). We narrowed the search to include patients aged 30 to 64 years, as the diagnoses for these diseases are most common in patients older than 30 years. Patients who were older than 64 years were not included in the study, as most are covered by Medicare and therefore costs covered by Humana in this age group would not be as representative as in younger age groups. Total and average diagnosis-related costs per patient were compared between dermatologists and PCPs. Diagnosis-related costs encompassed physician reimbursement; laboratory and imaging costs, including skin biopsies; inpatient hospitalization cost; and any other charge that could be coded or billed by providers and reimbursed by the insurance company. To be eligible for reimbursement from Humana, dermatologists and PCPs must be registered with the insurer according to specialty board certification and practice credentialing, and they are reimbursed differently based on specialty. Drug costs, which would possibly skew the data toward providers using more expensive systemic medications (ie, dermatologists), were not included in this study, as the discussion is better reserved for long-term management of disease rather than diagnosis-related costs. All diagnoses of psoriasis were included in the study, which likely includes all severities of psoriasis, though we did not have the ability to further break down these diagnoses by severity.

Results

We identified 30,217 psoriasis patients and 37,561 rosacea patients. Of those patients with a primary diagnosis of psoriasis, 26,112 (86%) were seen by a dermatologist and 4105 (14%) were seen by a PCP (Table). Of those patients with a primary diagnosis of rosacea, 34,694 (92%) were seen by a dermatologist and 2867 (8%) were seen by a PCP (Table). There was little difference in the average diagnosis-related cost per patient for psoriasis in males (dermatologists, $638; PCPs, $657) versus females (dermatologists, $592; PCPs, $586) or between specialties (Figure). Findings were similar for rosacea in males (dermatologists, $179; PCPs, $168) versus females (dermatologists, $157; PCPs, $161). For these skin diseases, it was concluded that it is not more cost-effective to be diagnosed by a PCP versus a dermatologist.

Comment

For the management of common skin disorders such as psoriasis and rosacea, there is little cost difference in seeing a dermatologist versus a PCP. Through extensive training and repeated exposure to many skin diseases, dermatologists are expected to be more comfortable in diagnosing and managing psoriasis and rosacea. Compared to PCPs, dermatologists have demonstrated increased diagnostic accuracy and efficiency when examining pigmented lesions and other dermatologic diseases in several studies.^3-6 Although the current study shows that diagnosis-related costs for psoriasis and rosacea are essentially equal between dermatologists and PCPs, it actually may be less expensive for patients to see a dermatologist, as unnecessary tests, biopsies, or medications are more likely to be ordered/prescribed when there is less clinical diagnostic certainty.^7,8 Additionally, seeing a PCP for diagnosis of a skin disease may be inefficient if subsequent referral to a dermatologist is needed, a common scenario that occurs when patients see a PCP for skin conditions.⁹

Our study had limitations, which is typical of a study using a claims database. We used ICD-9 codes recorded in patients’ medical claims to determine diagnosis of psoriasis and rosacea; therefore, our study and data are subject to coding errors. We could not assess the severity of disease, only the presence of disease. Further confirmation of diagnosis could have been made through searching for a second ICD-9 code in the patient’s history. Our data also are from a limited time period and may not represent costs from other time periods.

Conclusion

Given the lack of cost difference between both specialties, we conclude that ACOs should consider encouraging patients to seek care for dermatologic diseases by dermatologists who generally are more accurate and efficient skin diagnosticians, particularly if there is a shortage of PCPs within the ACO network.

Growing incentives to control health care costs may cause accountable care organizations (ACOs) to reconsider how diseases are best managed. Few studies have examined the cost difference between primary care providers (PCPs) and specialists in managing the same disease. Limited data have suggested that management of some diseases by a PCP may be less costly compared to a specialist^1,2; however, it is not clear if this finding extends to skin disease. This study sought to assess the cost of seeing a dermatologist versus a PCP for diagnosis of the common skin diseases psoriasis and rosacea.

Methods

Patient data were obtained from the Humana database, a large commercial data set for claims and reimbursed costs encompassing 18,162,539 patients covered between January 2007 and December 2014. Our study population consisted of 3,944,465 patients with claims that included International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9), codes for dermatological diagnoses (680.0–709.9). We searched by ICD-9 code for US patients with primary diagnoses of psoriasis (696.1) and rosacea (695.3). We narrowed the search to include patients aged 30 to 64 years, as the diagnoses for these diseases are most common in patients older than 30 years. Patients who were older than 64 years were not included in the study, as most are covered by Medicare and therefore costs covered by Humana in this age group would not be as representative as in younger age groups. Total and average diagnosis-related costs per patient were compared between dermatologists and PCPs. Diagnosis-related costs encompassed physician reimbursement; laboratory and imaging costs, including skin biopsies; inpatient hospitalization cost; and any other charge that could be coded or billed by providers and reimbursed by the insurance company. To be eligible for reimbursement from Humana, dermatologists and PCPs must be registered with the insurer according to specialty board certification and practice credentialing, and they are reimbursed differently based on specialty. Drug costs, which would possibly skew the data toward providers using more expensive systemic medications (ie, dermatologists), were not included in this study, as the discussion is better reserved for long-term management of disease rather than diagnosis-related costs. All diagnoses of psoriasis were included in the study, which likely includes all severities of psoriasis, though we did not have the ability to further break down these diagnoses by severity.

Results

We identified 30,217 psoriasis patients and 37,561 rosacea patients. Of those patients with a primary diagnosis of psoriasis, 26,112 (86%) were seen by a dermatologist and 4105 (14%) were seen by a PCP (Table). Of those patients with a primary diagnosis of rosacea, 34,694 (92%) were seen by a dermatologist and 2867 (8%) were seen by a PCP (Table). There was little difference in the average diagnosis-related cost per patient for psoriasis in males (dermatologists, $638; PCPs, $657) versus females (dermatologists, $592; PCPs, $586) or between specialties (Figure). Findings were similar for rosacea in males (dermatologists, $179; PCPs, $168) versus females (dermatologists, $157; PCPs, $161). For these skin diseases, it was concluded that it is not more cost-effective to be diagnosed by a PCP versus a dermatologist.

Comment

For the management of common skin disorders such as psoriasis and rosacea, there is little cost difference in seeing a dermatologist versus a PCP. Through extensive training and repeated exposure to many skin diseases, dermatologists are expected to be more comfortable in diagnosing and managing psoriasis and rosacea. Compared to PCPs, dermatologists have demonstrated increased diagnostic accuracy and efficiency when examining pigmented lesions and other dermatologic diseases in several studies.^3-6 Although the current study shows that diagnosis-related costs for psoriasis and rosacea are essentially equal between dermatologists and PCPs, it actually may be less expensive for patients to see a dermatologist, as unnecessary tests, biopsies, or medications are more likely to be ordered/prescribed when there is less clinical diagnostic certainty.^7,8 Additionally, seeing a PCP for diagnosis of a skin disease may be inefficient if subsequent referral to a dermatologist is needed, a common scenario that occurs when patients see a PCP for skin conditions.⁹

Our study had limitations, which is typical of a study using a claims database. We used ICD-9 codes recorded in patients’ medical claims to determine diagnosis of psoriasis and rosacea; therefore, our study and data are subject to coding errors. We could not assess the severity of disease, only the presence of disease. Further confirmation of diagnosis could have been made through searching for a second ICD-9 code in the patient’s history. Our data also are from a limited time period and may not represent costs from other time periods.

Conclusion

Given the lack of cost difference between both specialties, we conclude that ACOs should consider encouraging patients to seek care for dermatologic diseases by dermatologists who generally are more accurate and efficient skin diagnosticians, particularly if there is a shortage of PCPs within the ACO network.

The Nuremberg Code in 1947,¹ the Declaration of Helsinki in 1964,² and the Belmont Report in 1979³ were cornerstones in the establishment of ethical principles in the medical field. These documents specifically highlight the concept of informed consent, which maintains that to practice ethical medicine, physicians must fully inform patients of all therapeutic benefits and especially risks as well as treatment alternatives before they consent to therapeutic intervention. Educating patients about risks of treatment is obligatory. Risk communication involves a mutual exchange of information between physicians and patients; the physician presents risk information in an understandable manner that adequately conveys pertinent data that is critical for the patient to make an informed therapeutic decision.⁴

An inherent problem with risk education is that patients may be terrified about risks associated with treatment. Some patients will refuse needed treatment because of fear.⁵ When patients have concerns about the safety profile of a treatment regimen and potential adverse effects, they may be less compliant with treatment.⁶ The intelligent noncompliance phenomenon occurs when a patient knowingly makes the choice to not adhere to treatment, and concern regarding treatment risks relative to benefits is a common reason underlying this phenomenon.^7,8

Behavioral economists have studied how individuals weigh risks. Kahneman and Tversky’s⁹ prospect theory asserts that individuals tend to overweigh unlikely risks and underweigh more certain risks, which they call the certainty effect; it is the basis of the human tendency to avoid risks in situations of likely gain and to pursue risks in situations of likely loss. The tendency to overweigh rare risks is even more pronounced for affect-rich events such as serious side effects.¹⁰ The way data are presented can affect how patients interpret the information. Context and framing of data affect patients’ perceptions.¹¹ We describe several ways to present safety data using graphical presentation of psoriasis treatment safety data as an example and explain how each one can affect patients’ perception of treatment risks.

Approaches to Presenting Safety Data

There are numerous ways to present safety data to patients, including verbal, numeric, and visual strategies.¹² Many methods of presentation are a combination of these strategies. Graphs are visual strategies to further categorize and present numeric data, and physicians may choose to incorporate these aids when presenting safety information to patients. Graphical presentations give the patient a mental picture of the data. Numerous types of graphs can be constructed. Kalb et al¹³ determined the effect of psoriasis treatment on the risk of serious infection from the Psoriasis Longitudinal Assessment and Registry (PSOLAR). We used the results from this study to demonstrate multiple ways of presenting safety data (Figures 1–3).

A graphical presentation with a truncated y-axis is a common approach (Figure 1). Graphs with truncated axes are sometimes used to conserve space or to accentuate certain differences in the graph that would otherwise be less obvious without the zoomed in y-axis.¹⁴ These graphs present quantitatively accurate information that can be visually misleading at the same time. Truncated axes accentuate differences, creating mental impressions that are not reflective of the magnitude of the numeric differences. Alternatively, a graph with a full y-axis includes both the maximum and minimum data values on the y-axis (Figure 2). The y-axis also extends maximally to the total number of patients or patient-years studied. This type of graph presents all of the numeric data without distortion.

Focus on the Patients Who Do Not Have Adverse Effects of Treatments

Fear of adverse effects is one of the most commonly reported causes of poor treatment adherence.¹⁵ New therapies for psoriasis are highly effective and safe, but as with all treatments, they also are associated with some risks. Patients may latch onto those risks too tightly or perhaps, in other circumstances, not tightly enough. The method used by a physician to present safety data to a patient may determine the patient’s perception about treatments.

When trying to give patients an accurate impression of treatment risks, it may be helpful to avoid approaches that focus on presenting the (few) cases of severe adverse drug effects since patients (and physicians) are likely to overweigh the unlikely risk of having an adverse effect if presented with this information. It may be more reassuring to focus on presenting information about the chance of not having an adverse drug effect, assuming the physician’s goal is to be reassuring.

Poor communication with patients when presenting safety data can foster exaggerated fears of an unlikely consequence to the point that patients can be left undertreated and sustaining disease symptoms.¹⁶ Physicians may strive to do no harm to their patients, but without careful presentation of safety data in the process of helping the patient make an informed decision, it is possible to do mental harm to patients in the form of fear or even, in the case of nonadherence or treatment refusal, physical harm in the form of continued disease symptoms.

One limitation of this review is that we only used graphical presentation of data as an example. Similar concerns apply to numerical data presentation. Telling a patient the risk of a severe adverse reaction is doubled by a certain treatment may be terrifying, though if the baseline risk is rare, doubling the baseline risk may represent only a minimal increase in the absolute risk. Telling a patient the risk is only 1 in 1000 may still be alarming because many patients tend to focus on the 1, but telling a patient that 999 of 1000 patients do not have a problem can be much more reassuring.

The physician’s goal—to help patients make informed decisions about their treatment—calls for him/her to assimilate safety data into useful information that the patient can use to make an informed decision.¹⁷ Overly comforting or alarming, confusing, and inaccurate information can misguide the patient, violating the ethical principle of nonmaleficence. Although there is an obligation to educate patients about risks, there may not be a purely objective way to do it. When physicians present objective data to patients, whether in numerical or graphical form, there will be an unavoidable subjective interpretation of the data. The form of presentation will have a critical effect on patients’ subjective perceptions. Physicians can present objective data in such a way as to be reassuring or frightening.

Conclusion

Despite physicians’ best-intentioned efforts, it may be impossible to avoid presenting safety data in a way that will be subjectively interpreted by patients. Physicians have a choice in how they present data to patients; their best judgment should be used in how they present data to inform patients, guide them, and offer them the best treatment outcomes.

Acknowledgment

We thank Scott Jaros, BA (Winston-Salem, North Carolina), for his assistance in the revision of the manuscript.

The Nuremberg Code in 1947,¹ the Declaration of Helsinki in 1964,² and the Belmont Report in 1979³ were cornerstones in the establishment of ethical principles in the medical field. These documents specifically highlight the concept of informed consent, which maintains that to practice ethical medicine, physicians must fully inform patients of all therapeutic benefits and especially risks as well as treatment alternatives before they consent to therapeutic intervention. Educating patients about risks of treatment is obligatory. Risk communication involves a mutual exchange of information between physicians and patients; the physician presents risk information in an understandable manner that adequately conveys pertinent data that is critical for the patient to make an informed therapeutic decision.⁴

An inherent problem with risk education is that patients may be terrified about risks associated with treatment. Some patients will refuse needed treatment because of fear.⁵ When patients have concerns about the safety profile of a treatment regimen and potential adverse effects, they may be less compliant with treatment.⁶ The intelligent noncompliance phenomenon occurs when a patient knowingly makes the choice to not adhere to treatment, and concern regarding treatment risks relative to benefits is a common reason underlying this phenomenon.^7,8

Behavioral economists have studied how individuals weigh risks. Kahneman and Tversky’s⁹ prospect theory asserts that individuals tend to overweigh unlikely risks and underweigh more certain risks, which they call the certainty effect; it is the basis of the human tendency to avoid risks in situations of likely gain and to pursue risks in situations of likely loss. The tendency to overweigh rare risks is even more pronounced for affect-rich events such as serious side effects.¹⁰ The way data are presented can affect how patients interpret the information. Context and framing of data affect patients’ perceptions.¹¹ We describe several ways to present safety data using graphical presentation of psoriasis treatment safety data as an example and explain how each one can affect patients’ perception of treatment risks.

Approaches to Presenting Safety Data

There are numerous ways to present safety data to patients, including verbal, numeric, and visual strategies.¹² Many methods of presentation are a combination of these strategies. Graphs are visual strategies to further categorize and present numeric data, and physicians may choose to incorporate these aids when presenting safety information to patients. Graphical presentations give the patient a mental picture of the data. Numerous types of graphs can be constructed. Kalb et al¹³ determined the effect of psoriasis treatment on the risk of serious infection from the Psoriasis Longitudinal Assessment and Registry (PSOLAR). We used the results from this study to demonstrate multiple ways of presenting safety data (Figures 1–3).

A graphical presentation with a truncated y-axis is a common approach (Figure 1). Graphs with truncated axes are sometimes used to conserve space or to accentuate certain differences in the graph that would otherwise be less obvious without the zoomed in y-axis.¹⁴ These graphs present quantitatively accurate information that can be visually misleading at the same time. Truncated axes accentuate differences, creating mental impressions that are not reflective of the magnitude of the numeric differences. Alternatively, a graph with a full y-axis includes both the maximum and minimum data values on the y-axis (Figure 2). The y-axis also extends maximally to the total number of patients or patient-years studied. This type of graph presents all of the numeric data without distortion.

Focus on the Patients Who Do Not Have Adverse Effects of Treatments

Fear of adverse effects is one of the most commonly reported causes of poor treatment adherence.¹⁵ New therapies for psoriasis are highly effective and safe, but as with all treatments, they also are associated with some risks. Patients may latch onto those risks too tightly or perhaps, in other circumstances, not tightly enough. The method used by a physician to present safety data to a patient may determine the patient’s perception about treatments.

When trying to give patients an accurate impression of treatment risks, it may be helpful to avoid approaches that focus on presenting the (few) cases of severe adverse drug effects since patients (and physicians) are likely to overweigh the unlikely risk of having an adverse effect if presented with this information. It may be more reassuring to focus on presenting information about the chance of not having an adverse drug effect, assuming the physician’s goal is to be reassuring.

Poor communication with patients when presenting safety data can foster exaggerated fears of an unlikely consequence to the point that patients can be left undertreated and sustaining disease symptoms.¹⁶ Physicians may strive to do no harm to their patients, but without careful presentation of safety data in the process of helping the patient make an informed decision, it is possible to do mental harm to patients in the form of fear or even, in the case of nonadherence or treatment refusal, physical harm in the form of continued disease symptoms.

One limitation of this review is that we only used graphical presentation of data as an example. Similar concerns apply to numerical data presentation. Telling a patient the risk of a severe adverse reaction is doubled by a certain treatment may be terrifying, though if the baseline risk is rare, doubling the baseline risk may represent only a minimal increase in the absolute risk. Telling a patient the risk is only 1 in 1000 may still be alarming because many patients tend to focus on the 1, but telling a patient that 999 of 1000 patients do not have a problem can be much more reassuring.

The physician’s goal—to help patients make informed decisions about their treatment—calls for him/her to assimilate safety data into useful information that the patient can use to make an informed decision.¹⁷ Overly comforting or alarming, confusing, and inaccurate information can misguide the patient, violating the ethical principle of nonmaleficence. Although there is an obligation to educate patients about risks, there may not be a purely objective way to do it. When physicians present objective data to patients, whether in numerical or graphical form, there will be an unavoidable subjective interpretation of the data. The form of presentation will have a critical effect on patients’ subjective perceptions. Physicians can present objective data in such a way as to be reassuring or frightening.

Conclusion

Despite physicians’ best-intentioned efforts, it may be impossible to avoid presenting safety data in a way that will be subjectively interpreted by patients. Physicians have a choice in how they present data to patients; their best judgment should be used in how they present data to inform patients, guide them, and offer them the best treatment outcomes.

Acknowledgment

We thank Scott Jaros, BA (Winston-Salem, North Carolina), for his assistance in the revision of the manuscript.

The Nuremberg Code in 1947,¹ the Declaration of Helsinki in 1964,² and the Belmont Report in 1979³ were cornerstones in the establishment of ethical principles in the medical field. These documents specifically highlight the concept of informed consent, which maintains that to practice ethical medicine, physicians must fully inform patients of all therapeutic benefits and especially risks as well as treatment alternatives before they consent to therapeutic intervention. Educating patients about risks of treatment is obligatory. Risk communication involves a mutual exchange of information between physicians and patients; the physician presents risk information in an understandable manner that adequately conveys pertinent data that is critical for the patient to make an informed therapeutic decision.⁴

An inherent problem with risk education is that patients may be terrified about risks associated with treatment. Some patients will refuse needed treatment because of fear.⁵ When patients have concerns about the safety profile of a treatment regimen and potential adverse effects, they may be less compliant with treatment.⁶ The intelligent noncompliance phenomenon occurs when a patient knowingly makes the choice to not adhere to treatment, and concern regarding treatment risks relative to benefits is a common reason underlying this phenomenon.^7,8

Behavioral economists have studied how individuals weigh risks. Kahneman and Tversky’s⁹ prospect theory asserts that individuals tend to overweigh unlikely risks and underweigh more certain risks, which they call the certainty effect; it is the basis of the human tendency to avoid risks in situations of likely gain and to pursue risks in situations of likely loss. The tendency to overweigh rare risks is even more pronounced for affect-rich events such as serious side effects.¹⁰ The way data are presented can affect how patients interpret the information. Context and framing of data affect patients’ perceptions.¹¹ We describe several ways to present safety data using graphical presentation of psoriasis treatment safety data as an example and explain how each one can affect patients’ perception of treatment risks.

Approaches to Presenting Safety Data

There are numerous ways to present safety data to patients, including verbal, numeric, and visual strategies.¹² Many methods of presentation are a combination of these strategies. Graphs are visual strategies to further categorize and present numeric data, and physicians may choose to incorporate these aids when presenting safety information to patients. Graphical presentations give the patient a mental picture of the data. Numerous types of graphs can be constructed. Kalb et al¹³ determined the effect of psoriasis treatment on the risk of serious infection from the Psoriasis Longitudinal Assessment and Registry (PSOLAR). We used the results from this study to demonstrate multiple ways of presenting safety data (Figures 1–3).

A graphical presentation with a truncated y-axis is a common approach (Figure 1). Graphs with truncated axes are sometimes used to conserve space or to accentuate certain differences in the graph that would otherwise be less obvious without the zoomed in y-axis.¹⁴ These graphs present quantitatively accurate information that can be visually misleading at the same time. Truncated axes accentuate differences, creating mental impressions that are not reflective of the magnitude of the numeric differences. Alternatively, a graph with a full y-axis includes both the maximum and minimum data values on the y-axis (Figure 2). The y-axis also extends maximally to the total number of patients or patient-years studied. This type of graph presents all of the numeric data without distortion.

Focus on the Patients Who Do Not Have Adverse Effects of Treatments

Fear of adverse effects is one of the most commonly reported causes of poor treatment adherence.¹⁵ New therapies for psoriasis are highly effective and safe, but as with all treatments, they also are associated with some risks. Patients may latch onto those risks too tightly or perhaps, in other circumstances, not tightly enough. The method used by a physician to present safety data to a patient may determine the patient’s perception about treatments.

When trying to give patients an accurate impression of treatment risks, it may be helpful to avoid approaches that focus on presenting the (few) cases of severe adverse drug effects since patients (and physicians) are likely to overweigh the unlikely risk of having an adverse effect if presented with this information. It may be more reassuring to focus on presenting information about the chance of not having an adverse drug effect, assuming the physician’s goal is to be reassuring.

Poor communication with patients when presenting safety data can foster exaggerated fears of an unlikely consequence to the point that patients can be left undertreated and sustaining disease symptoms.¹⁶ Physicians may strive to do no harm to their patients, but without careful presentation of safety data in the process of helping the patient make an informed decision, it is possible to do mental harm to patients in the form of fear or even, in the case of nonadherence or treatment refusal, physical harm in the form of continued disease symptoms.

One limitation of this review is that we only used graphical presentation of data as an example. Similar concerns apply to numerical data presentation. Telling a patient the risk of a severe adverse reaction is doubled by a certain treatment may be terrifying, though if the baseline risk is rare, doubling the baseline risk may represent only a minimal increase in the absolute risk. Telling a patient the risk is only 1 in 1000 may still be alarming because many patients tend to focus on the 1, but telling a patient that 999 of 1000 patients do not have a problem can be much more reassuring.

The physician’s goal—to help patients make informed decisions about their treatment—calls for him/her to assimilate safety data into useful information that the patient can use to make an informed decision.¹⁷ Overly comforting or alarming, confusing, and inaccurate information can misguide the patient, violating the ethical principle of nonmaleficence. Although there is an obligation to educate patients about risks, there may not be a purely objective way to do it. When physicians present objective data to patients, whether in numerical or graphical form, there will be an unavoidable subjective interpretation of the data. The form of presentation will have a critical effect on patients’ subjective perceptions. Physicians can present objective data in such a way as to be reassuring or frightening.

Conclusion

Despite physicians’ best-intentioned efforts, it may be impossible to avoid presenting safety data in a way that will be subjectively interpreted by patients. Physicians have a choice in how they present data to patients; their best judgment should be used in how they present data to inform patients, guide them, and offer them the best treatment outcomes.

Acknowledgment

We thank Scott Jaros, BA (Winston-Salem, North Carolina), for his assistance in the revision of the manuscript.

The US Food and Drug Administration uses the term boxed warning to highlight potentially dangerous situations associated with prescription drugs. A boxed warning is used when “[T]here is an adverse reaction so serious in proportion to the potential benefit from the drug (e.g., a fatal, life-threatening or permanently disabling adverse reaction) that it is essential that it be considered in assessing the risks and benefits of using the drug.”¹ However, drugs are not the only potential cause of severe adverse outcomes in patients with psoriasis. Untreated psoriasis also is a well-established cause of serious morbidity and mortality. What are the risks of inadequate psoriasis treatment?

Psoriasis is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease.^2-4 Patients with psoriasis also have a higher prevalence of classic cardiovascular risk factors including smoking, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, obesity, and hyperlipidemia.^5,6 Psoriasis is a T-cell mediated disease process driven by IL-23 and T_H17 helper cell–derived proinflammatory cytokines, sharing certain genetic aspects with metabolic syndrome.⁶ Cytokine actions on insulin signaling, lipid metabolism, and adipogenesis may underlie the increased prevalence of metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with psoriasis. In addition to treating the cutaneous manifestations of psoriasis, reducing inflammation in these patients reduces C-reactive protein and lipid peroxidation and increases high-density lipoprotein levels.⁶ Tumor necrosis factor α blockers decrease the risk for cardiovascular disease in patients with psoriasis.^7,8 Lower than expected rates of cardiovascular disease also have been reported in a large cohort of psoriasis patients (ie, PSOLAR [Psoriasis Longitudinal Assessment and Registry] registry) being treated with either ustekinumab or tumor necrosis factor α blockers.⁹

Psoriatic arthritis is a chronic inflammatory disease in which active inflammation results in progressive joint destruction.¹⁰ Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors suppress disease progression, preserve function, and delay destruction of the joints. Ustekinumab also helps control psoriatic arthritis and inhibits radiographic progression of joint disease.¹¹

Importantly, untreated moderate to severe psoriasis is associated with several comorbidities that may lead to early death such as heart attacks and strokes.¹² Furthermore, patients not taking biologic medications may have higher death rates than patients taking biologic medications.⁹ Psoriasis also is associated with tremendous suffering and negative psychosocial effects. The mental and physical impact of the disease is comparable to other major medical conditions (eg, cancer, arthritis, hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, depression).¹³ Patients also may experience physical discomfort from pain and itching.¹⁴ Children with psoriasis may experience bullying, which is associated with an increased number of depressive episodes, thereby increasing their risk for developing psychiatric conditions such as depression and anxiety as adults.¹⁵ The stigma associated with psoriasis may affect patients’ ability to build relationships. Patients with psoriasis experience higher divorce rates than patients with other chronic medical conditions, and direct involvement of genital regions may negatively impact patients’ sex lives. Patients have noted that the stigma of psoriasis also is associated with the inability to obtain employment.¹⁵ Almost one-third of patients with psoriasis who are either not working or are retired base their work status on their skin condition.¹⁶ Furthermore, psoriasis may contribute to economic burden for patients due to indirect costs associated with work absenteeism.¹⁷

Adequate treatment of psoriasis improves patients’ physical and psychological health as well as their ability to function in the workplace. However, despite the benefits of treatment, 30% of patients with severe psoriasis and 53% of patients with moderate psoriasis receive no treatment or only topical medications instead of systemic therapies.¹⁶ The potential adverse events of inadequate psoriasis treatment far outweigh any potential benefits of withholding treatment. Perhaps a boxed warning should be issued for inadequate treatment of psoriasis patients.

The US Food and Drug Administration uses the term boxed warning to highlight potentially dangerous situations associated with prescription drugs. A boxed warning is used when “[T]here is an adverse reaction so serious in proportion to the potential benefit from the drug (e.g., a fatal, life-threatening or permanently disabling adverse reaction) that it is essential that it be considered in assessing the risks and benefits of using the drug.”¹ However, drugs are not the only potential cause of severe adverse outcomes in patients with psoriasis. Untreated psoriasis also is a well-established cause of serious morbidity and mortality. What are the risks of inadequate psoriasis treatment?

Psoriasis is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease.^2-4 Patients with psoriasis also have a higher prevalence of classic cardiovascular risk factors including smoking, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, obesity, and hyperlipidemia.^5,6 Psoriasis is a T-cell mediated disease process driven by IL-23 and T_H17 helper cell–derived proinflammatory cytokines, sharing certain genetic aspects with metabolic syndrome.⁶ Cytokine actions on insulin signaling, lipid metabolism, and adipogenesis may underlie the increased prevalence of metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with psoriasis. In addition to treating the cutaneous manifestations of psoriasis, reducing inflammation in these patients reduces C-reactive protein and lipid peroxidation and increases high-density lipoprotein levels.⁶ Tumor necrosis factor α blockers decrease the risk for cardiovascular disease in patients with psoriasis.^7,8 Lower than expected rates of cardiovascular disease also have been reported in a large cohort of psoriasis patients (ie, PSOLAR [Psoriasis Longitudinal Assessment and Registry] registry) being treated with either ustekinumab or tumor necrosis factor α blockers.⁹

Psoriatic arthritis is a chronic inflammatory disease in which active inflammation results in progressive joint destruction.¹⁰ Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors suppress disease progression, preserve function, and delay destruction of the joints. Ustekinumab also helps control psoriatic arthritis and inhibits radiographic progression of joint disease.¹¹

Importantly, untreated moderate to severe psoriasis is associated with several comorbidities that may lead to early death such as heart attacks and strokes.¹² Furthermore, patients not taking biologic medications may have higher death rates than patients taking biologic medications.⁹ Psoriasis also is associated with tremendous suffering and negative psychosocial effects. The mental and physical impact of the disease is comparable to other major medical conditions (eg, cancer, arthritis, hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, depression).¹³ Patients also may experience physical discomfort from pain and itching.¹⁴ Children with psoriasis may experience bullying, which is associated with an increased number of depressive episodes, thereby increasing their risk for developing psychiatric conditions such as depression and anxiety as adults.¹⁵ The stigma associated with psoriasis may affect patients’ ability to build relationships. Patients with psoriasis experience higher divorce rates than patients with other chronic medical conditions, and direct involvement of genital regions may negatively impact patients’ sex lives. Patients have noted that the stigma of psoriasis also is associated with the inability to obtain employment.¹⁵ Almost one-third of patients with psoriasis who are either not working or are retired base their work status on their skin condition.¹⁶ Furthermore, psoriasis may contribute to economic burden for patients due to indirect costs associated with work absenteeism.¹⁷

Adequate treatment of psoriasis improves patients’ physical and psychological health as well as their ability to function in the workplace. However, despite the benefits of treatment, 30% of patients with severe psoriasis and 53% of patients with moderate psoriasis receive no treatment or only topical medications instead of systemic therapies.¹⁶ The potential adverse events of inadequate psoriasis treatment far outweigh any potential benefits of withholding treatment. Perhaps a boxed warning should be issued for inadequate treatment of psoriasis patients.

The US Food and Drug Administration uses the term boxed warning to highlight potentially dangerous situations associated with prescription drugs. A boxed warning is used when “[T]here is an adverse reaction so serious in proportion to the potential benefit from the drug (e.g., a fatal, life-threatening or permanently disabling adverse reaction) that it is essential that it be considered in assessing the risks and benefits of using the drug.”¹ However, drugs are not the only potential cause of severe adverse outcomes in patients with psoriasis. Untreated psoriasis also is a well-established cause of serious morbidity and mortality. What are the risks of inadequate psoriasis treatment?

Psoriasis is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease.^2-4 Patients with psoriasis also have a higher prevalence of classic cardiovascular risk factors including smoking, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, obesity, and hyperlipidemia.^5,6 Psoriasis is a T-cell mediated disease process driven by IL-23 and T_H17 helper cell–derived proinflammatory cytokines, sharing certain genetic aspects with metabolic syndrome.⁶ Cytokine actions on insulin signaling, lipid metabolism, and adipogenesis may underlie the increased prevalence of metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular risk factors in patients with psoriasis. In addition to treating the cutaneous manifestations of psoriasis, reducing inflammation in these patients reduces C-reactive protein and lipid peroxidation and increases high-density lipoprotein levels.⁶ Tumor necrosis factor α blockers decrease the risk for cardiovascular disease in patients with psoriasis.^7,8 Lower than expected rates of cardiovascular disease also have been reported in a large cohort of psoriasis patients (ie, PSOLAR [Psoriasis Longitudinal Assessment and Registry] registry) being treated with either ustekinumab or tumor necrosis factor α blockers.⁹

Psoriatic arthritis is a chronic inflammatory disease in which active inflammation results in progressive joint destruction.¹⁰ Tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors suppress disease progression, preserve function, and delay destruction of the joints. Ustekinumab also helps control psoriatic arthritis and inhibits radiographic progression of joint disease.¹¹

Importantly, untreated moderate to severe psoriasis is associated with several comorbidities that may lead to early death such as heart attacks and strokes.¹² Furthermore, patients not taking biologic medications may have higher death rates than patients taking biologic medications.⁹ Psoriasis also is associated with tremendous suffering and negative psychosocial effects. The mental and physical impact of the disease is comparable to other major medical conditions (eg, cancer, arthritis, hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, depression).¹³ Patients also may experience physical discomfort from pain and itching.¹⁴ Children with psoriasis may experience bullying, which is associated with an increased number of depressive episodes, thereby increasing their risk for developing psychiatric conditions such as depression and anxiety as adults.¹⁵ The stigma associated with psoriasis may affect patients’ ability to build relationships. Patients with psoriasis experience higher divorce rates than patients with other chronic medical conditions, and direct involvement of genital regions may negatively impact patients’ sex lives. Patients have noted that the stigma of psoriasis also is associated with the inability to obtain employment.¹⁵ Almost one-third of patients with psoriasis who are either not working or are retired base their work status on their skin condition.¹⁶ Furthermore, psoriasis may contribute to economic burden for patients due to indirect costs associated with work absenteeism.¹⁷

Adequate treatment of psoriasis improves patients’ physical and psychological health as well as their ability to function in the workplace. However, despite the benefits of treatment, 30% of patients with severe psoriasis and 53% of patients with moderate psoriasis receive no treatment or only topical medications instead of systemic therapies.¹⁶ The potential adverse events of inadequate psoriasis treatment far outweigh any potential benefits of withholding treatment. Perhaps a boxed warning should be issued for inadequate treatment of psoriasis patients.

Skin diseases are highly prevalent in the United States, affecting an estimated 1 in 3 Americans at any given time.^1,2 In 2009 the direct medical costs associated with skin-related diseases, including health services and prescriptions, was approximately $22 billion; the annual total economic burden was estimated to be closer to $96 billion when factoring in the cost of lost productivity and pay for symptom relief.^3,4 Effective and efficient management of skin disease is essential to minimizing cost and morbidity. Nondermatologists traditionally have diagnosed the majority of skin diseases.^5,6 In particular, primary care physicians commonly manage dermatologic conditions and often are the first health care providers to encounter patients presenting with skin problems. A predicted shortage of dermatologists will likely contribute to an increase in this trend.^7,8 Therefore, it is important to adequately prepare nondermatologists to evaluate and treat the skin conditions that they are most likely to encounter in their scope of practice.

Residents, particularly in primary care specialties, often have opportunities to spend 2 to 4 weeks with a dermatologist to learn about skin diseases; however, the skin conditions most often encountered by dermatologists may differ from those most often encountered by physicians in other specialties. For instance, one study demonstrated a disparity between the most common skin problems seen by dermatologists and internists.⁹ These dissimilarities should be recognized and addressed in curriculum content. The purpose of this study was to identify and compare the 20 most common dermatologic conditions reported by dermatologists versus those reported by nondermatologists (ie, internists, pediatricians, family physicians, emergency medicine physicians, general surgeons, otolaryngologists) from 2001 to 2010. Data also were analyzed to determine the top 20 conditions referred to dermatologists by nondermatologists as a potential indicator for areas of further improvement within medical education. With this knowledge, we hope educational curricula and self-study can be modified to reflect the current epidemiology of cutaneous diseases, thereby improving patient care.

Methods

Data from 2001 to 2010 were extracted from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS), which is an ongoing survey conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics. The NAMCS collects descriptive data regarding ambulatory visits to nonfederal office-based physicians in the United States. Participating physicians are instructed to record information about patient visits for a 1-week period, including patient demographics, insurance status, reason for visit, diagnoses, procedures, therapeutics, and referrals made at that time. Data collected for the NAMCS are entered into a multistage probability sample to produce national estimates. Within dermatology, an average of 118 dermatologists are sampled each year, and over the last 10 years, participation rates have ranged from 47% to 77%.

International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes were identified to determine the diagnoses that could be classified as dermatologic conditions. Select infectious and neoplastic disorders of the skin and mucous membrane conditions were included as well as the codes for skin diseases. Nondermatologic diagnoses and V codes were not included in the study. Data for all providers were studied to identify outpatient visits associated with the primary diagnosis of a dermatologic condition. Minor diagnoses that were considered to be subsets of major diagnoses were combined to allow better analysis of the data. For example, all tinea infections (ie, dermatophytosis of various sites, dermatomycosis unspecified) were combined into 1 diagnosis referred to as tinea because the recognition and treatment of this disease does not vary tremendously by anatomic location. Visits to dermatologists that listed nonspecific diagnoses and codes (eg, other postsurgical status [V45.89], neoplasm of uncertain behavior site unspecified [238.9]) were assumed to be for dermatologic problems.

Sampling weights were applied to obtain estimates for the number of each diagnosis made nationally. All data analyses were performed using SAS software and linear regression models were generated using SAS PROC SURVEYREG.

Data were analyzed to determine the dermatologic conditions most commonly encountered by dermatologists and nondermatologists in emergency medicine, family medicine, general surgery, internal medicine, otolaryngology, and pediatrics; these specialties include physicians who are known to commonly diagnose and treat skin diseases.¹⁰ Data also were analyzed to determine the most common conditions referred to dermatologists for treatment by nondermatologists from the selected specialties. Permission to conduct this study was obtained from the Wake Forest University institutional review board (Winston-Salem, North Carolina).

Results

From 2001 to 2010, more than 700 million outpatient visits for skin-related problems were identified, with 676.3 million visits to dermatologists, emergency medicine physicians, family practitioners, general surgeons, internists, otolaryngologists, and pediatricians. More than half (52.9%) of all skin-related visits were addressed by nondermatologists during this time. Among nondermatologists, family practitioners encountered the greatest number of skin diseases (20.5%), followed by pediatricians (11.3%), internists (9.2%), general surgeons (3.4%), otolaryngologists (1.0%), and emergency medicine physicians (0.2%)(Table 1).

Benign tumors and acne were the most common cutaneous conditions referred to dermatologists by nondermatologists (10.6% and 10.1% of all dermatology referrals, respectively), followed by nonmelanoma skin cancers (9.7%), contact dermatitis (8.8%), and actinic keratosis (7.8%)(Table 2). The top 20 conditions referred to dermatologists accounted for 83.7% of all outpatient referrals to dermatologists.

Among the diseases most frequently reported by nondermatologists, contact dermatitis was the most common (12.0%), with twice the number of visits to nondermatologists for contact dermatitis than to dermatologists (51.6 million vs 25.3 million). In terms of disease categories, infectious skin diseases (ie, bacterial [cellulitis/abscess], viral [warts, herpesvirus], fungal [tinea] and yeast [candida] etiologies) were the most common dermatologic conditions reported by nondermatologists (Table 2).

The top 20 dermatologic conditions reported by dermatologists accounted for 85.4% of all diagnoses made by dermatologists. Diseases that were among the top 20 conditions encountered by dermatologists but were not among the top 20 for nondermatologists included actinic keratosis, seborrheic keratosis, atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, alopecia, rosacea, dyschromia, seborrheic dermatitis, follicular disease, and neoplasm of uncertain behavior of skin. Additionally, 5 of the top 20 conditions encountered by dermatologists also were among the top 20 for only 1 individual nondermatologic specialty; these included atopic dermatitis (pediatrics), seborrheic dermatitis (pediatrics), psoriasis (internal medicine), rosacea (otolaryngology), and keratoderma (general surgery). Seborrheic dermatitis, psoriasis, and rosacea also were among the top 20 conditions most commonly referred to dermatologists for treatment by nondermatologists. Table 3 shows the top 20 dermatologic conditions encountered by nondermatologists by comparison.

Comment

According to NAMCS data from 2001 to 2010, visits to nondermatologists accounted for more than half of total outpatient visits for cutaneous diseases in the United States, whereas visits to dermatologists accounted for 47.1%. These findings are consistent with historical data indicating that 30% to 40% of skin-related visits are to dermatologists, and the majority of patients with skin disease are diagnosed by nondermatologists.^5,6

Past data indicate that most visits to dermatologists were for evaluation of acne, infections, psoriasis, and neoplasms, whereas most visits to nondermatologists were for evaluation of epidermoid cysts, impetigo, plant dermatitis, cellulitis, and diaper rash.⁹ Over the last 10 years, acne has been more commonly encountered by nondermatologists, especially pediatricians. Additionally, infectious etiologies have been seen in larger volume by nondermatologists.⁹ Together, infectious cutaneous conditions make up nearly one-fourth of dermatologic encounters by emergency medicine physicians, internists, and family practitioners but are not within the top 20 diagnoses referred to dermatologists, which suggests that uncomplicated cases of cellulitis, herpes zoster, and other skin-related infections are largely managed by nondermatologists.^5,6 Contact dermatitis, often caused by specific allergens such as detergents, solvents, and topical products, was one of the most common reported dermatologic encounters among dermatologists and nondermatologists and also was the fourth most common condition referred to dermatologists by nondermatologists for treatment; however, there may be an element of overuse of the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision code, as any presumed contact dermatitis of unspecified cause can be reported under 692.9 defined as contact dermatitis and other eczema, unspecified cause. The high rate of referrals to dermatologists by nondermatologists may be for patch testing and further management. Additionally, there are no specific codes for allergic or irritant dermatitis, thus these diseases may be lumped together.

Although nearly half of all dermatologic encounters were seen by nondermatologists, dermatologists see a much larger proportion of patients with skin disease than nondermatologists and nondermatologists often have limited exposure to the field of dermatology during residency training. Studies have demonstrated differences in the abilities of dermatologists and nondermatologists to correctly diagnose common cutaneous diseases, which unsurprisingly revealed greater diagnostic accuracy demonstrated by dermatologists.^11-16 The increase in acne and skin-related infections reported by nondermatologists is consistent with possible efforts to increase formal training in frequently encountered skin diseases. In one study evaluating the impact of a formal 3-week dermatology curriculum on an internal medicine department, internists demonstrated 100% accuracy in the diagnosis of acne and herpes zoster in contrast to 29% for tinea and 12% for lichen planus.^5,6

The current Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education guidelines place little emphasis on exposure to dermatology training during residency for internists and pediatricians, as this training is not a required component of these programs.¹⁷ Two core problems with current training regarding the evaluation and management of cutaneous disease are minimal exposure to dermatologic conditions in medical school and residency and lack of consensus on the core topics that should be taught to nondermatologists.¹⁸ Exposure to dermatologic conditions through rotations in medical school has been shown to increase residents’ self-reported confidence in diagnosing and treating alopecia, cutaneous drug eruptions, warts, acne, rosacea, nonmelanoma skin cancers, sun damage, psoriasis, seborrhea, atopic dermatitis, and contact dermatitis; however, the majority of primary care residents surveyed still felt that this exposure in medical school was inadequate.¹⁹

In creating a core curriculum for dermatology training for nondermatologists, it is important to consider the dermatologic conditions that are most frequently encountered by these specialties. Our study revealed that the most commonly encountered dermatologic conditions differ among dermatologists and nondermatologists, with a fair degree of variation even among individual specialties. Failure to recognize these discrepancies has likely contributed to the challenges faced by nondermatologists in the diagnosis and management of dermatologic disease. In this study, contact dermatitis, epidermoid cysts, and skin infections were the most common dermatologic conditions encountered by nondermatologists and also were among the top skin diseases referred to dermatologists by nondermatologists. This finding suggests that nondermatologists are able to identify these conditions but have a tendency to refer approximately 10% of these patients to dermatology for further management. Clinical evaluation and medical management of these cutaneous diseases may be an important area of focus for medical school curricula, as the treatment of these diseases is within the capabilities of the nondermatologist. For example, initial management of dermatitis requires determination of the type of dermatitis (ie, essential, contact, atopic, seborrheic, stasis) and selection of an appropriate topical steroid, with referral to a dermatologist needed for questionable or refractory cases. Although a curriculum cannot be built solely on a list of the top 20 diagnoses provided here, these data may serve as a preliminary platform for medical school dermatology curriculum design. The curriculum also should include serious skin diseases, such as melanoma and severe drug eruptions. Although these conditions are less commonly encountered by nondermatologists, missed diagnosis and/or improper management can be life threatening.

The use of NAMCS data presents a few limitations. For instance, these data only represent outpatient management of skin disease. There is the potential for misdiagnosis and coding errors by the reporting physicians. The volume of data (ie, billions of office visits) prevents verification of diagnostic accuracy. The coding system requires physicians to give a diagnosis but does not provide any means by which to determine the physician’s confidence in that diagnosis. There is no code for “uncertain” or “diagnosis not determined.” Additionally, an “unspecified” diagnosis may reflect uncertainty or may simply imply that no other code accurately described the condition. Despite these limitations, the NAMCS database is a large, nationally representative survey of actual patient visits and represents some of the best data available for a study such as ours.

Conclusion

This study provides an important analysis of the most common outpatient dermatologic conditions encountered by dermatologists and nondermatologists of various specialties and offers a foundation from which to construct curricula for dermatology training tailored to individual specialties based on their needs. In the future, identification of the most common inpatient dermatologic conditions managed by each specialty also may benefit curriculum design.

Skin diseases are highly prevalent in the United States, affecting an estimated 1 in 3 Americans at any given time.^1,2 In 2009 the direct medical costs associated with skin-related diseases, including health services and prescriptions, was approximately $22 billion; the annual total economic burden was estimated to be closer to $96 billion when factoring in the cost of lost productivity and pay for symptom relief.^3,4 Effective and efficient management of skin disease is essential to minimizing cost and morbidity. Nondermatologists traditionally have diagnosed the majority of skin diseases.^5,6 In particular, primary care physicians commonly manage dermatologic conditions and often are the first health care providers to encounter patients presenting with skin problems. A predicted shortage of dermatologists will likely contribute to an increase in this trend.^7,8 Therefore, it is important to adequately prepare nondermatologists to evaluate and treat the skin conditions that they are most likely to encounter in their scope of practice.

Residents, particularly in primary care specialties, often have opportunities to spend 2 to 4 weeks with a dermatologist to learn about skin diseases; however, the skin conditions most often encountered by dermatologists may differ from those most often encountered by physicians in other specialties. For instance, one study demonstrated a disparity between the most common skin problems seen by dermatologists and internists.⁹ These dissimilarities should be recognized and addressed in curriculum content. The purpose of this study was to identify and compare the 20 most common dermatologic conditions reported by dermatologists versus those reported by nondermatologists (ie, internists, pediatricians, family physicians, emergency medicine physicians, general surgeons, otolaryngologists) from 2001 to 2010. Data also were analyzed to determine the top 20 conditions referred to dermatologists by nondermatologists as a potential indicator for areas of further improvement within medical education. With this knowledge, we hope educational curricula and self-study can be modified to reflect the current epidemiology of cutaneous diseases, thereby improving patient care.

Methods

Data from 2001 to 2010 were extracted from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS), which is an ongoing survey conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics. The NAMCS collects descriptive data regarding ambulatory visits to nonfederal office-based physicians in the United States. Participating physicians are instructed to record information about patient visits for a 1-week period, including patient demographics, insurance status, reason for visit, diagnoses, procedures, therapeutics, and referrals made at that time. Data collected for the NAMCS are entered into a multistage probability sample to produce national estimates. Within dermatology, an average of 118 dermatologists are sampled each year, and over the last 10 years, participation rates have ranged from 47% to 77%.

International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes were identified to determine the diagnoses that could be classified as dermatologic conditions. Select infectious and neoplastic disorders of the skin and mucous membrane conditions were included as well as the codes for skin diseases. Nondermatologic diagnoses and V codes were not included in the study. Data for all providers were studied to identify outpatient visits associated with the primary diagnosis of a dermatologic condition. Minor diagnoses that were considered to be subsets of major diagnoses were combined to allow better analysis of the data. For example, all tinea infections (ie, dermatophytosis of various sites, dermatomycosis unspecified) were combined into 1 diagnosis referred to as tinea because the recognition and treatment of this disease does not vary tremendously by anatomic location. Visits to dermatologists that listed nonspecific diagnoses and codes (eg, other postsurgical status [V45.89], neoplasm of uncertain behavior site unspecified [238.9]) were assumed to be for dermatologic problems.

Sampling weights were applied to obtain estimates for the number of each diagnosis made nationally. All data analyses were performed using SAS software and linear regression models were generated using SAS PROC SURVEYREG.

Data were analyzed to determine the dermatologic conditions most commonly encountered by dermatologists and nondermatologists in emergency medicine, family medicine, general surgery, internal medicine, otolaryngology, and pediatrics; these specialties include physicians who are known to commonly diagnose and treat skin diseases.¹⁰ Data also were analyzed to determine the most common conditions referred to dermatologists for treatment by nondermatologists from the selected specialties. Permission to conduct this study was obtained from the Wake Forest University institutional review board (Winston-Salem, North Carolina).

Results

From 2001 to 2010, more than 700 million outpatient visits for skin-related problems were identified, with 676.3 million visits to dermatologists, emergency medicine physicians, family practitioners, general surgeons, internists, otolaryngologists, and pediatricians. More than half (52.9%) of all skin-related visits were addressed by nondermatologists during this time. Among nondermatologists, family practitioners encountered the greatest number of skin diseases (20.5%), followed by pediatricians (11.3%), internists (9.2%), general surgeons (3.4%), otolaryngologists (1.0%), and emergency medicine physicians (0.2%)(Table 1).

Benign tumors and acne were the most common cutaneous conditions referred to dermatologists by nondermatologists (10.6% and 10.1% of all dermatology referrals, respectively), followed by nonmelanoma skin cancers (9.7%), contact dermatitis (8.8%), and actinic keratosis (7.8%)(Table 2). The top 20 conditions referred to dermatologists accounted for 83.7% of all outpatient referrals to dermatologists.

Among the diseases most frequently reported by nondermatologists, contact dermatitis was the most common (12.0%), with twice the number of visits to nondermatologists for contact dermatitis than to dermatologists (51.6 million vs 25.3 million). In terms of disease categories, infectious skin diseases (ie, bacterial [cellulitis/abscess], viral [warts, herpesvirus], fungal [tinea] and yeast [candida] etiologies) were the most common dermatologic conditions reported by nondermatologists (Table 2).

The top 20 dermatologic conditions reported by dermatologists accounted for 85.4% of all diagnoses made by dermatologists. Diseases that were among the top 20 conditions encountered by dermatologists but were not among the top 20 for nondermatologists included actinic keratosis, seborrheic keratosis, atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, alopecia, rosacea, dyschromia, seborrheic dermatitis, follicular disease, and neoplasm of uncertain behavior of skin. Additionally, 5 of the top 20 conditions encountered by dermatologists also were among the top 20 for only 1 individual nondermatologic specialty; these included atopic dermatitis (pediatrics), seborrheic dermatitis (pediatrics), psoriasis (internal medicine), rosacea (otolaryngology), and keratoderma (general surgery). Seborrheic dermatitis, psoriasis, and rosacea also were among the top 20 conditions most commonly referred to dermatologists for treatment by nondermatologists. Table 3 shows the top 20 dermatologic conditions encountered by nondermatologists by comparison.

Comment

According to NAMCS data from 2001 to 2010, visits to nondermatologists accounted for more than half of total outpatient visits for cutaneous diseases in the United States, whereas visits to dermatologists accounted for 47.1%. These findings are consistent with historical data indicating that 30% to 40% of skin-related visits are to dermatologists, and the majority of patients with skin disease are diagnosed by nondermatologists.^5,6

Past data indicate that most visits to dermatologists were for evaluation of acne, infections, psoriasis, and neoplasms, whereas most visits to nondermatologists were for evaluation of epidermoid cysts, impetigo, plant dermatitis, cellulitis, and diaper rash.⁹ Over the last 10 years, acne has been more commonly encountered by nondermatologists, especially pediatricians. Additionally, infectious etiologies have been seen in larger volume by nondermatologists.⁹ Together, infectious cutaneous conditions make up nearly one-fourth of dermatologic encounters by emergency medicine physicians, internists, and family practitioners but are not within the top 20 diagnoses referred to dermatologists, which suggests that uncomplicated cases of cellulitis, herpes zoster, and other skin-related infections are largely managed by nondermatologists.^5,6 Contact dermatitis, often caused by specific allergens such as detergents, solvents, and topical products, was one of the most common reported dermatologic encounters among dermatologists and nondermatologists and also was the fourth most common condition referred to dermatologists by nondermatologists for treatment; however, there may be an element of overuse of the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision code, as any presumed contact dermatitis of unspecified cause can be reported under 692.9 defined as contact dermatitis and other eczema, unspecified cause. The high rate of referrals to dermatologists by nondermatologists may be for patch testing and further management. Additionally, there are no specific codes for allergic or irritant dermatitis, thus these diseases may be lumped together.

Although nearly half of all dermatologic encounters were seen by nondermatologists, dermatologists see a much larger proportion of patients with skin disease than nondermatologists and nondermatologists often have limited exposure to the field of dermatology during residency training. Studies have demonstrated differences in the abilities of dermatologists and nondermatologists to correctly diagnose common cutaneous diseases, which unsurprisingly revealed greater diagnostic accuracy demonstrated by dermatologists.^11-16 The increase in acne and skin-related infections reported by nondermatologists is consistent with possible efforts to increase formal training in frequently encountered skin diseases. In one study evaluating the impact of a formal 3-week dermatology curriculum on an internal medicine department, internists demonstrated 100% accuracy in the diagnosis of acne and herpes zoster in contrast to 29% for tinea and 12% for lichen planus.^5,6

The current Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education guidelines place little emphasis on exposure to dermatology training during residency for internists and pediatricians, as this training is not a required component of these programs.¹⁷ Two core problems with current training regarding the evaluation and management of cutaneous disease are minimal exposure to dermatologic conditions in medical school and residency and lack of consensus on the core topics that should be taught to nondermatologists.¹⁸ Exposure to dermatologic conditions through rotations in medical school has been shown to increase residents’ self-reported confidence in diagnosing and treating alopecia, cutaneous drug eruptions, warts, acne, rosacea, nonmelanoma skin cancers, sun damage, psoriasis, seborrhea, atopic dermatitis, and contact dermatitis; however, the majority of primary care residents surveyed still felt that this exposure in medical school was inadequate.¹⁹

In creating a core curriculum for dermatology training for nondermatologists, it is important to consider the dermatologic conditions that are most frequently encountered by these specialties. Our study revealed that the most commonly encountered dermatologic conditions differ among dermatologists and nondermatologists, with a fair degree of variation even among individual specialties. Failure to recognize these discrepancies has likely contributed to the challenges faced by nondermatologists in the diagnosis and management of dermatologic disease. In this study, contact dermatitis, epidermoid cysts, and skin infections were the most common dermatologic conditions encountered by nondermatologists and also were among the top skin diseases referred to dermatologists by nondermatologists. This finding suggests that nondermatologists are able to identify these conditions but have a tendency to refer approximately 10% of these patients to dermatology for further management. Clinical evaluation and medical management of these cutaneous diseases may be an important area of focus for medical school curricula, as the treatment of these diseases is within the capabilities of the nondermatologist. For example, initial management of dermatitis requires determination of the type of dermatitis (ie, essential, contact, atopic, seborrheic, stasis) and selection of an appropriate topical steroid, with referral to a dermatologist needed for questionable or refractory cases. Although a curriculum cannot be built solely on a list of the top 20 diagnoses provided here, these data may serve as a preliminary platform for medical school dermatology curriculum design. The curriculum also should include serious skin diseases, such as melanoma and severe drug eruptions. Although these conditions are less commonly encountered by nondermatologists, missed diagnosis and/or improper management can be life threatening.

The use of NAMCS data presents a few limitations. For instance, these data only represent outpatient management of skin disease. There is the potential for misdiagnosis and coding errors by the reporting physicians. The volume of data (ie, billions of office visits) prevents verification of diagnostic accuracy. The coding system requires physicians to give a diagnosis but does not provide any means by which to determine the physician’s confidence in that diagnosis. There is no code for “uncertain” or “diagnosis not determined.” Additionally, an “unspecified” diagnosis may reflect uncertainty or may simply imply that no other code accurately described the condition. Despite these limitations, the NAMCS database is a large, nationally representative survey of actual patient visits and represents some of the best data available for a study such as ours.

Conclusion

This study provides an important analysis of the most common outpatient dermatologic conditions encountered by dermatologists and nondermatologists of various specialties and offers a foundation from which to construct curricula for dermatology training tailored to individual specialties based on their needs. In the future, identification of the most common inpatient dermatologic conditions managed by each specialty also may benefit curriculum design.

Skin diseases are highly prevalent in the United States, affecting an estimated 1 in 3 Americans at any given time.^1,2 In 2009 the direct medical costs associated with skin-related diseases, including health services and prescriptions, was approximately $22 billion; the annual total economic burden was estimated to be closer to $96 billion when factoring in the cost of lost productivity and pay for symptom relief.^3,4 Effective and efficient management of skin disease is essential to minimizing cost and morbidity. Nondermatologists traditionally have diagnosed the majority of skin diseases.^5,6 In particular, primary care physicians commonly manage dermatologic conditions and often are the first health care providers to encounter patients presenting with skin problems. A predicted shortage of dermatologists will likely contribute to an increase in this trend.^7,8 Therefore, it is important to adequately prepare nondermatologists to evaluate and treat the skin conditions that they are most likely to encounter in their scope of practice.

Residents, particularly in primary care specialties, often have opportunities to spend 2 to 4 weeks with a dermatologist to learn about skin diseases; however, the skin conditions most often encountered by dermatologists may differ from those most often encountered by physicians in other specialties. For instance, one study demonstrated a disparity between the most common skin problems seen by dermatologists and internists.⁹ These dissimilarities should be recognized and addressed in curriculum content. The purpose of this study was to identify and compare the 20 most common dermatologic conditions reported by dermatologists versus those reported by nondermatologists (ie, internists, pediatricians, family physicians, emergency medicine physicians, general surgeons, otolaryngologists) from 2001 to 2010. Data also were analyzed to determine the top 20 conditions referred to dermatologists by nondermatologists as a potential indicator for areas of further improvement within medical education. With this knowledge, we hope educational curricula and self-study can be modified to reflect the current epidemiology of cutaneous diseases, thereby improving patient care.

Methods

Data from 2001 to 2010 were extracted from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS), which is an ongoing survey conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics. The NAMCS collects descriptive data regarding ambulatory visits to nonfederal office-based physicians in the United States. Participating physicians are instructed to record information about patient visits for a 1-week period, including patient demographics, insurance status, reason for visit, diagnoses, procedures, therapeutics, and referrals made at that time. Data collected for the NAMCS are entered into a multistage probability sample to produce national estimates. Within dermatology, an average of 118 dermatologists are sampled each year, and over the last 10 years, participation rates have ranged from 47% to 77%.

International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes were identified to determine the diagnoses that could be classified as dermatologic conditions. Select infectious and neoplastic disorders of the skin and mucous membrane conditions were included as well as the codes for skin diseases. Nondermatologic diagnoses and V codes were not included in the study. Data for all providers were studied to identify outpatient visits associated with the primary diagnosis of a dermatologic condition. Minor diagnoses that were considered to be subsets of major diagnoses were combined to allow better analysis of the data. For example, all tinea infections (ie, dermatophytosis of various sites, dermatomycosis unspecified) were combined into 1 diagnosis referred to as tinea because the recognition and treatment of this disease does not vary tremendously by anatomic location. Visits to dermatologists that listed nonspecific diagnoses and codes (eg, other postsurgical status [V45.89], neoplasm of uncertain behavior site unspecified [238.9]) were assumed to be for dermatologic problems.

Sampling weights were applied to obtain estimates for the number of each diagnosis made nationally. All data analyses were performed using SAS software and linear regression models were generated using SAS PROC SURVEYREG.

Data were analyzed to determine the dermatologic conditions most commonly encountered by dermatologists and nondermatologists in emergency medicine, family medicine, general surgery, internal medicine, otolaryngology, and pediatrics; these specialties include physicians who are known to commonly diagnose and treat skin diseases.¹⁰ Data also were analyzed to determine the most common conditions referred to dermatologists for treatment by nondermatologists from the selected specialties. Permission to conduct this study was obtained from the Wake Forest University institutional review board (Winston-Salem, North Carolina).

Results

From 2001 to 2010, more than 700 million outpatient visits for skin-related problems were identified, with 676.3 million visits to dermatologists, emergency medicine physicians, family practitioners, general surgeons, internists, otolaryngologists, and pediatricians. More than half (52.9%) of all skin-related visits were addressed by nondermatologists during this time. Among nondermatologists, family practitioners encountered the greatest number of skin diseases (20.5%), followed by pediatricians (11.3%), internists (9.2%), general surgeons (3.4%), otolaryngologists (1.0%), and emergency medicine physicians (0.2%)(Table 1).

Benign tumors and acne were the most common cutaneous conditions referred to dermatologists by nondermatologists (10.6% and 10.1% of all dermatology referrals, respectively), followed by nonmelanoma skin cancers (9.7%), contact dermatitis (8.8%), and actinic keratosis (7.8%)(Table 2). The top 20 conditions referred to dermatologists accounted for 83.7% of all outpatient referrals to dermatologists.

Among the diseases most frequently reported by nondermatologists, contact dermatitis was the most common (12.0%), with twice the number of visits to nondermatologists for contact dermatitis than to dermatologists (51.6 million vs 25.3 million). In terms of disease categories, infectious skin diseases (ie, bacterial [cellulitis/abscess], viral [warts, herpesvirus], fungal [tinea] and yeast [candida] etiologies) were the most common dermatologic conditions reported by nondermatologists (Table 2).

The top 20 dermatologic conditions reported by dermatologists accounted for 85.4% of all diagnoses made by dermatologists. Diseases that were among the top 20 conditions encountered by dermatologists but were not among the top 20 for nondermatologists included actinic keratosis, seborrheic keratosis, atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, alopecia, rosacea, dyschromia, seborrheic dermatitis, follicular disease, and neoplasm of uncertain behavior of skin. Additionally, 5 of the top 20 conditions encountered by dermatologists also were among the top 20 for only 1 individual nondermatologic specialty; these included atopic dermatitis (pediatrics), seborrheic dermatitis (pediatrics), psoriasis (internal medicine), rosacea (otolaryngology), and keratoderma (general surgery). Seborrheic dermatitis, psoriasis, and rosacea also were among the top 20 conditions most commonly referred to dermatologists for treatment by nondermatologists. Table 3 shows the top 20 dermatologic conditions encountered by nondermatologists by comparison.

Comment

According to NAMCS data from 2001 to 2010, visits to nondermatologists accounted for more than half of total outpatient visits for cutaneous diseases in the United States, whereas visits to dermatologists accounted for 47.1%. These findings are consistent with historical data indicating that 30% to 40% of skin-related visits are to dermatologists, and the majority of patients with skin disease are diagnosed by nondermatologists.^5,6

Past data indicate that most visits to dermatologists were for evaluation of acne, infections, psoriasis, and neoplasms, whereas most visits to nondermatologists were for evaluation of epidermoid cysts, impetigo, plant dermatitis, cellulitis, and diaper rash.⁹ Over the last 10 years, acne has been more commonly encountered by nondermatologists, especially pediatricians. Additionally, infectious etiologies have been seen in larger volume by nondermatologists.⁹ Together, infectious cutaneous conditions make up nearly one-fourth of dermatologic encounters by emergency medicine physicians, internists, and family practitioners but are not within the top 20 diagnoses referred to dermatologists, which suggests that uncomplicated cases of cellulitis, herpes zoster, and other skin-related infections are largely managed by nondermatologists.^5,6 Contact dermatitis, often caused by specific allergens such as detergents, solvents, and topical products, was one of the most common reported dermatologic encounters among dermatologists and nondermatologists and also was the fourth most common condition referred to dermatologists by nondermatologists for treatment; however, there may be an element of overuse of the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision code, as any presumed contact dermatitis of unspecified cause can be reported under 692.9 defined as contact dermatitis and other eczema, unspecified cause. The high rate of referrals to dermatologists by nondermatologists may be for patch testing and further management. Additionally, there are no specific codes for allergic or irritant dermatitis, thus these diseases may be lumped together.

Although nearly half of all dermatologic encounters were seen by nondermatologists, dermatologists see a much larger proportion of patients with skin disease than nondermatologists and nondermatologists often have limited exposure to the field of dermatology during residency training. Studies have demonstrated differences in the abilities of dermatologists and nondermatologists to correctly diagnose common cutaneous diseases, which unsurprisingly revealed greater diagnostic accuracy demonstrated by dermatologists.^11-16 The increase in acne and skin-related infections reported by nondermatologists is consistent with possible efforts to increase formal training in frequently encountered skin diseases. In one study evaluating the impact of a formal 3-week dermatology curriculum on an internal medicine department, internists demonstrated 100% accuracy in the diagnosis of acne and herpes zoster in contrast to 29% for tinea and 12% for lichen planus.^5,6

The current Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education guidelines place little emphasis on exposure to dermatology training during residency for internists and pediatricians, as this training is not a required component of these programs.¹⁷ Two core problems with current training regarding the evaluation and management of cutaneous disease are minimal exposure to dermatologic conditions in medical school and residency and lack of consensus on the core topics that should be taught to nondermatologists.¹⁸ Exposure to dermatologic conditions through rotations in medical school has been shown to increase residents’ self-reported confidence in diagnosing and treating alopecia, cutaneous drug eruptions, warts, acne, rosacea, nonmelanoma skin cancers, sun damage, psoriasis, seborrhea, atopic dermatitis, and contact dermatitis; however, the majority of primary care residents surveyed still felt that this exposure in medical school was inadequate.¹⁹

In creating a core curriculum for dermatology training for nondermatologists, it is important to consider the dermatologic conditions that are most frequently encountered by these specialties. Our study revealed that the most commonly encountered dermatologic conditions differ among dermatologists and nondermatologists, with a fair degree of variation even among individual specialties. Failure to recognize these discrepancies has likely contributed to the challenges faced by nondermatologists in the diagnosis and management of dermatologic disease. In this study, contact dermatitis, epidermoid cysts, and skin infections were the most common dermatologic conditions encountered by nondermatologists and also were among the top skin diseases referred to dermatologists by nondermatologists. This finding suggests that nondermatologists are able to identify these conditions but have a tendency to refer approximately 10% of these patients to dermatology for further management. Clinical evaluation and medical management of these cutaneous diseases may be an important area of focus for medical school curricula, as the treatment of these diseases is within the capabilities of the nondermatologist. For example, initial management of dermatitis requires determination of the type of dermatitis (ie, essential, contact, atopic, seborrheic, stasis) and selection of an appropriate topical steroid, with referral to a dermatologist needed for questionable or refractory cases. Although a curriculum cannot be built solely on a list of the top 20 diagnoses provided here, these data may serve as a preliminary platform for medical school dermatology curriculum design. The curriculum also should include serious skin diseases, such as melanoma and severe drug eruptions. Although these conditions are less commonly encountered by nondermatologists, missed diagnosis and/or improper management can be life threatening.

The use of NAMCS data presents a few limitations. For instance, these data only represent outpatient management of skin disease. There is the potential for misdiagnosis and coding errors by the reporting physicians. The volume of data (ie, billions of office visits) prevents verification of diagnostic accuracy. The coding system requires physicians to give a diagnosis but does not provide any means by which to determine the physician’s confidence in that diagnosis. There is no code for “uncertain” or “diagnosis not determined.” Additionally, an “unspecified” diagnosis may reflect uncertainty or may simply imply that no other code accurately described the condition. Despite these limitations, the NAMCS database is a large, nationally representative survey of actual patient visits and represents some of the best data available for a study such as ours.

Conclusion

This study provides an important analysis of the most common outpatient dermatologic conditions encountered by dermatologists and nondermatologists of various specialties and offers a foundation from which to construct curricula for dermatology training tailored to individual specialties based on their needs. In the future, identification of the most common inpatient dermatologic conditions managed by each specialty also may benefit curriculum design.