Vincent A. DeLeo, MD

The US population is becoming more diverse. By 2044, it is predicted that there will be a majority minority population in the United States.¹ Therefore, it is imperative to continue to develop educational mechanisms for all dermatologists to increase and maintain competency in skin of color dermatology, which will contribute to the achievement of health equity for patients with all skin tones and hair types.

[embed:render:related:node:244145]

Not only is clinical skin of color education necessary, but diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) education for dermatologists also is critical. Clinical examination,² diagnosis, and treatment of skin and hair disorders across the skin of color spectrum with cultural humility is essential to achieve health equity. If trainees, dermatologists, other specialists, and primary care clinicians are not frequently exposed to patients with darker skin tones and coily hair, the nuances in diagnosing and treating these patients must be learned in alternate ways.

To ready the nation’s physicians and clinicians to care for the growing diverse population, exposure to more images of dermatologic diseases in those with darker skin tones in journal articles, textbooks, conference lectures, and online dermatology image libraries is necessary to help close the skin of color training and practice gap.^3,4 The following initiatives demonstrate how Cutis has sought to address these educational gaps and remains committed to improving DEI education in dermatology.

Collaboration With the Skin of Color Society

The Skin of Color Society (SOCS), which was founded in 2004 by Dr. Susan C. Taylor, is a dermatologic organization with more than 800 members representing 32 countries. Its mission includes promoting awareness and excellence within skin of color dermatology through research, education, and mentorship. The SOCS has utilized strategic partnerships with national and international dermatologists, as well as professional medical organizations and community, industry, and corporate groups, to ultimately ensure that patients with skin of color receive the expert care they deserve.⁵ In 2017, Cutis published the inaugural article in its collaboration with the SOCS,⁶ and more articles, which undergo regular peer review, continue to be published quarterly (https://www.mdedge.com/dermatology/skin-color).

Increase Number of Journal Articles on Skin of Color Topics

Increasing the number of journal articles on skin of color–related topics needs to be intentional, as it is a tool that has been identified as a necessary part of enhancing awareness and subsequently improving patient care. Wilson et al⁷ used stringent criteria to review all articles published from January 2018 to October 2020 in 52 dermatology journals for inclusion of topics on skin of color, hair in patients with skin of color, diversity and inclusion, and socioeconomic and health care disparities in the skin of color population. The journals they reviewed included publications based on continents with majority skin of color populations, such as Asia, as well as those with minority skin of color populations, such as Europe. During the study period, the percentage of articles covering skin of color ranged from 2.04% to 61.8%, with an average of 16.8%.⁷

The total number of Cutis articles published during the study period was 709, with 132 (18.62%) meeting the investigators’ criteria for articles on skin of color; these included case reports in which at least 1 patient with skin of color was featured.⁷ Overall, Cutis ranked 16th of the 52 journals for inclusion of skin of color content. Cutis was one of only a few journals based in North America, a non–skin-of-color–predominant continent, to make the top 16 in this study.⁷

Some of the 132 skin of color articles published in Cutis were the result of the journal’s collaboration with the SOCS. Through this collaboration, articles were published on a variety of skin of color topics, including DEI (6), alopecia and hair care (5), dermoscopy/optical coherence tomography imaging (1), atopic dermatitis (1), cosmetics (1), hidradenitis suppurativa (1), pigmentation (1), rosacea (1), and skin cancer (2). These articles also resulted in a number of podcast discussions (https://www.mdedge.com/podcasts/dermatology-weekly), including one on dealing with DEI, one on pigmentation, and one on dermoscopy/optical coherence tomography imaging. The latter featured the SOCS Scientific Symposium poster winners in 2020.

[embed:render:related:node:242922]

The number of articles published specifically through Cutis’s collaboration with the SOCS accounted for only a small part of the journal’s 132 skin of color articles identified in the study by Wilson et al.⁷ We speculate that Cutis’s display of intentional commitment to supporting the inclusion of skin of color articles in the journal may in turn encourage its broader readership to submit more skin of color–focused articles for peer review.

Wilson et al⁷ specifically remarked that “Cutis’s [Skin of Color] section in each issue is a promising idea.” They also highlighted Clinics in Dermatology for committing an entire issue to skin of color; however, despite this initiative, Clinics in Dermatology still ranked 35th of 52 journals with regard to the overall percentage of skin of color articles published.⁷ This suggests that a journal publishing one special issue on skin of color annually is a helpful addition to the literature, but increasing the number of articles related to skin of color in each journal issue, similar to Cutis, will ultimately result in a higher overall number of skin of color articles in the dermatology literature.

[embed:render:related:node:241960]

Both Amuzie et al⁴ and Wilson et al⁷ concluded that the higher a journal’s impact factor, the lower the number of skin of color articles published.However, skin of color articles published in high-impact journals received a higher number of citations than those in other lower-impact journals.⁴ High-impact journals may use Cutis as a model for increasing the number of skin of color articles they publish, which will have a notable impact on increasing skin of color knowledge and educating dermatologists.

Coverage of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

In another study, Bray et al⁸ conducted a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE from January 2008 to July 2019 to quantify the number of articles specifically focused on DEI in a variety of medical specialties. The field of dermatology had the highest number of articles published on DEI (25) compared to the other specialties, including family medicine (23), orthopedic surgery (12), internal medicine (9), general surgery (7), radiology (6), ophthalmology (2), and anesthesiology (2).⁸ However, Wilson et al⁷ found that, out of all the categories of skin of color articles published in dermatology journals during their study period, those focused on DEI made up less than 1% of the total number of articles. Dermatology is off to a great start compared to other specialties, but there is still more work to do in dermatology for DEI. Cutis’s collaboration with the SOCS has resulted in 6 DEI articles published since 2017.

Think Beyond Dermatology Education

The collaboration between Cutis and the SOCS was established to create a series of articles dedicated to increasing the skin of color dermatology knowledge base of the Cutis readership and beyond; however, increased readership and more citations are needed to amplify the reach of the articles published by these skin of color experts. Cutis’s collaboration with SOCS is one mechanism to increase the skin of color literature, but skin of color and DEI articles outside of this collaboration should continue to be published in each issue of Cutis.

The collaboration between SOCS and Cutis was and continues to be a forward-thinking step toward improving skin of color dermatology education, but there is still work to be done across the medical literature with regard to increasing intentional publication of skin of color articles. Nondermatologist clinicians in the Cutis readership benefit from knowledge of skin of color, as all specialties and primary care will see increased patient diversity in their examination rooms.

To further ensure that primary care is not left behind, Cutis has partnered with The Journal of Family Practice to produce a new column called Dx Across the Skin of Color Spectrum (https://www.mdedge.com/dermatology/dx-across-skin-color-spectrum), which is co-published in both journals.^9,10 These one-page fact sheets highlight images of dermatologic conditions in skin of color as well as images of the same condition in lighter skin, a concept suggested by Cutis Associate Editor, Dr. Candrice R. Heath. The goal of this new column is to increase the accurate diagnosis of dermatologic conditions in skin of color and to highlight health disparities related to a particular condition in an easy-to-understand format. Uniquely, Dr. Heath co-authors this content with family physician Dr. Richard P. Usatine.

Final Thoughts

The entire community of medical journals should continue to develop creative ways to educate their readership. Medical professionals stay up-to-date on best practices through journal articles, textbooks, conferences, and even podcasts. Therefore, it is best to incorporate skin of color knowledge throughout all educational programming, particularly through enduring materials such as journal articles. Wilson et al⁷ suggested that a minimum of 16.8% of a dermatology journal’s articles in each issue should focus on skin of color in addition to special focus issues, as this will work toward more equitable dermatologic care.

[embed:render:related:node:243864]

Knowledge is only part of the equation; compassionate care with cultural humility is the other part. Publishing scientific facts about biology and structure, diagnosis, and treatment selection in skin of color, as well as committing to lifelong learning about the differences in our patients despite the absence of shared life or cultural experiences, may be the key to truly impacting health equity.¹¹ We believe that together we will get there one journal article and one citation at a time.

The US population is becoming more diverse. By 2044, it is predicted that there will be a majority minority population in the United States.¹ Therefore, it is imperative to continue to develop educational mechanisms for all dermatologists to increase and maintain competency in skin of color dermatology, which will contribute to the achievement of health equity for patients with all skin tones and hair types.

[embed:render:related:node:244145]

Not only is clinical skin of color education necessary, but diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) education for dermatologists also is critical. Clinical examination,² diagnosis, and treatment of skin and hair disorders across the skin of color spectrum with cultural humility is essential to achieve health equity. If trainees, dermatologists, other specialists, and primary care clinicians are not frequently exposed to patients with darker skin tones and coily hair, the nuances in diagnosing and treating these patients must be learned in alternate ways.

To ready the nation’s physicians and clinicians to care for the growing diverse population, exposure to more images of dermatologic diseases in those with darker skin tones in journal articles, textbooks, conference lectures, and online dermatology image libraries is necessary to help close the skin of color training and practice gap.^3,4 The following initiatives demonstrate how Cutis has sought to address these educational gaps and remains committed to improving DEI education in dermatology.

Collaboration With the Skin of Color Society

The Skin of Color Society (SOCS), which was founded in 2004 by Dr. Susan C. Taylor, is a dermatologic organization with more than 800 members representing 32 countries. Its mission includes promoting awareness and excellence within skin of color dermatology through research, education, and mentorship. The SOCS has utilized strategic partnerships with national and international dermatologists, as well as professional medical organizations and community, industry, and corporate groups, to ultimately ensure that patients with skin of color receive the expert care they deserve.⁵ In 2017, Cutis published the inaugural article in its collaboration with the SOCS,⁶ and more articles, which undergo regular peer review, continue to be published quarterly (https://www.mdedge.com/dermatology/skin-color).

Increase Number of Journal Articles on Skin of Color Topics

Increasing the number of journal articles on skin of color–related topics needs to be intentional, as it is a tool that has been identified as a necessary part of enhancing awareness and subsequently improving patient care. Wilson et al⁷ used stringent criteria to review all articles published from January 2018 to October 2020 in 52 dermatology journals for inclusion of topics on skin of color, hair in patients with skin of color, diversity and inclusion, and socioeconomic and health care disparities in the skin of color population. The journals they reviewed included publications based on continents with majority skin of color populations, such as Asia, as well as those with minority skin of color populations, such as Europe. During the study period, the percentage of articles covering skin of color ranged from 2.04% to 61.8%, with an average of 16.8%.⁷

The total number of Cutis articles published during the study period was 709, with 132 (18.62%) meeting the investigators’ criteria for articles on skin of color; these included case reports in which at least 1 patient with skin of color was featured.⁷ Overall, Cutis ranked 16th of the 52 journals for inclusion of skin of color content. Cutis was one of only a few journals based in North America, a non–skin-of-color–predominant continent, to make the top 16 in this study.⁷

Some of the 132 skin of color articles published in Cutis were the result of the journal’s collaboration with the SOCS. Through this collaboration, articles were published on a variety of skin of color topics, including DEI (6), alopecia and hair care (5), dermoscopy/optical coherence tomography imaging (1), atopic dermatitis (1), cosmetics (1), hidradenitis suppurativa (1), pigmentation (1), rosacea (1), and skin cancer (2). These articles also resulted in a number of podcast discussions (https://www.mdedge.com/podcasts/dermatology-weekly), including one on dealing with DEI, one on pigmentation, and one on dermoscopy/optical coherence tomography imaging. The latter featured the SOCS Scientific Symposium poster winners in 2020.

[embed:render:related:node:242922]

The number of articles published specifically through Cutis’s collaboration with the SOCS accounted for only a small part of the journal’s 132 skin of color articles identified in the study by Wilson et al.⁷ We speculate that Cutis’s display of intentional commitment to supporting the inclusion of skin of color articles in the journal may in turn encourage its broader readership to submit more skin of color–focused articles for peer review.

Wilson et al⁷ specifically remarked that “Cutis’s [Skin of Color] section in each issue is a promising idea.” They also highlighted Clinics in Dermatology for committing an entire issue to skin of color; however, despite this initiative, Clinics in Dermatology still ranked 35th of 52 journals with regard to the overall percentage of skin of color articles published.⁷ This suggests that a journal publishing one special issue on skin of color annually is a helpful addition to the literature, but increasing the number of articles related to skin of color in each journal issue, similar to Cutis, will ultimately result in a higher overall number of skin of color articles in the dermatology literature.

[embed:render:related:node:241960]

Both Amuzie et al⁴ and Wilson et al⁷ concluded that the higher a journal’s impact factor, the lower the number of skin of color articles published.However, skin of color articles published in high-impact journals received a higher number of citations than those in other lower-impact journals.⁴ High-impact journals may use Cutis as a model for increasing the number of skin of color articles they publish, which will have a notable impact on increasing skin of color knowledge and educating dermatologists.

Coverage of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

In another study, Bray et al⁸ conducted a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE from January 2008 to July 2019 to quantify the number of articles specifically focused on DEI in a variety of medical specialties. The field of dermatology had the highest number of articles published on DEI (25) compared to the other specialties, including family medicine (23), orthopedic surgery (12), internal medicine (9), general surgery (7), radiology (6), ophthalmology (2), and anesthesiology (2).⁸ However, Wilson et al⁷ found that, out of all the categories of skin of color articles published in dermatology journals during their study period, those focused on DEI made up less than 1% of the total number of articles. Dermatology is off to a great start compared to other specialties, but there is still more work to do in dermatology for DEI. Cutis’s collaboration with the SOCS has resulted in 6 DEI articles published since 2017.

Think Beyond Dermatology Education

The collaboration between Cutis and the SOCS was established to create a series of articles dedicated to increasing the skin of color dermatology knowledge base of the Cutis readership and beyond; however, increased readership and more citations are needed to amplify the reach of the articles published by these skin of color experts. Cutis’s collaboration with SOCS is one mechanism to increase the skin of color literature, but skin of color and DEI articles outside of this collaboration should continue to be published in each issue of Cutis.

The collaboration between SOCS and Cutis was and continues to be a forward-thinking step toward improving skin of color dermatology education, but there is still work to be done across the medical literature with regard to increasing intentional publication of skin of color articles. Nondermatologist clinicians in the Cutis readership benefit from knowledge of skin of color, as all specialties and primary care will see increased patient diversity in their examination rooms.

To further ensure that primary care is not left behind, Cutis has partnered with The Journal of Family Practice to produce a new column called Dx Across the Skin of Color Spectrum (https://www.mdedge.com/dermatology/dx-across-skin-color-spectrum), which is co-published in both journals.^9,10 These one-page fact sheets highlight images of dermatologic conditions in skin of color as well as images of the same condition in lighter skin, a concept suggested by Cutis Associate Editor, Dr. Candrice R. Heath. The goal of this new column is to increase the accurate diagnosis of dermatologic conditions in skin of color and to highlight health disparities related to a particular condition in an easy-to-understand format. Uniquely, Dr. Heath co-authors this content with family physician Dr. Richard P. Usatine.

Final Thoughts

The entire community of medical journals should continue to develop creative ways to educate their readership. Medical professionals stay up-to-date on best practices through journal articles, textbooks, conferences, and even podcasts. Therefore, it is best to incorporate skin of color knowledge throughout all educational programming, particularly through enduring materials such as journal articles. Wilson et al⁷ suggested that a minimum of 16.8% of a dermatology journal’s articles in each issue should focus on skin of color in addition to special focus issues, as this will work toward more equitable dermatologic care.

[embed:render:related:node:243864]

Knowledge is only part of the equation; compassionate care with cultural humility is the other part. Publishing scientific facts about biology and structure, diagnosis, and treatment selection in skin of color, as well as committing to lifelong learning about the differences in our patients despite the absence of shared life or cultural experiences, may be the key to truly impacting health equity.¹¹ We believe that together we will get there one journal article and one citation at a time.

The US population is becoming more diverse. By 2044, it is predicted that there will be a majority minority population in the United States.¹ Therefore, it is imperative to continue to develop educational mechanisms for all dermatologists to increase and maintain competency in skin of color dermatology, which will contribute to the achievement of health equity for patients with all skin tones and hair types.

[embed:render:related:node:244145]

Not only is clinical skin of color education necessary, but diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) education for dermatologists also is critical. Clinical examination,² diagnosis, and treatment of skin and hair disorders across the skin of color spectrum with cultural humility is essential to achieve health equity. If trainees, dermatologists, other specialists, and primary care clinicians are not frequently exposed to patients with darker skin tones and coily hair, the nuances in diagnosing and treating these patients must be learned in alternate ways.

To ready the nation’s physicians and clinicians to care for the growing diverse population, exposure to more images of dermatologic diseases in those with darker skin tones in journal articles, textbooks, conference lectures, and online dermatology image libraries is necessary to help close the skin of color training and practice gap.^3,4 The following initiatives demonstrate how Cutis has sought to address these educational gaps and remains committed to improving DEI education in dermatology.

Collaboration With the Skin of Color Society

The Skin of Color Society (SOCS), which was founded in 2004 by Dr. Susan C. Taylor, is a dermatologic organization with more than 800 members representing 32 countries. Its mission includes promoting awareness and excellence within skin of color dermatology through research, education, and mentorship. The SOCS has utilized strategic partnerships with national and international dermatologists, as well as professional medical organizations and community, industry, and corporate groups, to ultimately ensure that patients with skin of color receive the expert care they deserve.⁵ In 2017, Cutis published the inaugural article in its collaboration with the SOCS,⁶ and more articles, which undergo regular peer review, continue to be published quarterly (https://www.mdedge.com/dermatology/skin-color).

Increase Number of Journal Articles on Skin of Color Topics

Increasing the number of journal articles on skin of color–related topics needs to be intentional, as it is a tool that has been identified as a necessary part of enhancing awareness and subsequently improving patient care. Wilson et al⁷ used stringent criteria to review all articles published from January 2018 to October 2020 in 52 dermatology journals for inclusion of topics on skin of color, hair in patients with skin of color, diversity and inclusion, and socioeconomic and health care disparities in the skin of color population. The journals they reviewed included publications based on continents with majority skin of color populations, such as Asia, as well as those with minority skin of color populations, such as Europe. During the study period, the percentage of articles covering skin of color ranged from 2.04% to 61.8%, with an average of 16.8%.⁷

The total number of Cutis articles published during the study period was 709, with 132 (18.62%) meeting the investigators’ criteria for articles on skin of color; these included case reports in which at least 1 patient with skin of color was featured.⁷ Overall, Cutis ranked 16th of the 52 journals for inclusion of skin of color content. Cutis was one of only a few journals based in North America, a non–skin-of-color–predominant continent, to make the top 16 in this study.⁷

Some of the 132 skin of color articles published in Cutis were the result of the journal’s collaboration with the SOCS. Through this collaboration, articles were published on a variety of skin of color topics, including DEI (6), alopecia and hair care (5), dermoscopy/optical coherence tomography imaging (1), atopic dermatitis (1), cosmetics (1), hidradenitis suppurativa (1), pigmentation (1), rosacea (1), and skin cancer (2). These articles also resulted in a number of podcast discussions (https://www.mdedge.com/podcasts/dermatology-weekly), including one on dealing with DEI, one on pigmentation, and one on dermoscopy/optical coherence tomography imaging. The latter featured the SOCS Scientific Symposium poster winners in 2020.

[embed:render:related:node:242922]

The number of articles published specifically through Cutis’s collaboration with the SOCS accounted for only a small part of the journal’s 132 skin of color articles identified in the study by Wilson et al.⁷ We speculate that Cutis’s display of intentional commitment to supporting the inclusion of skin of color articles in the journal may in turn encourage its broader readership to submit more skin of color–focused articles for peer review.

Wilson et al⁷ specifically remarked that “Cutis’s [Skin of Color] section in each issue is a promising idea.” They also highlighted Clinics in Dermatology for committing an entire issue to skin of color; however, despite this initiative, Clinics in Dermatology still ranked 35th of 52 journals with regard to the overall percentage of skin of color articles published.⁷ This suggests that a journal publishing one special issue on skin of color annually is a helpful addition to the literature, but increasing the number of articles related to skin of color in each journal issue, similar to Cutis, will ultimately result in a higher overall number of skin of color articles in the dermatology literature.

[embed:render:related:node:241960]

Both Amuzie et al⁴ and Wilson et al⁷ concluded that the higher a journal’s impact factor, the lower the number of skin of color articles published.However, skin of color articles published in high-impact journals received a higher number of citations than those in other lower-impact journals.⁴ High-impact journals may use Cutis as a model for increasing the number of skin of color articles they publish, which will have a notable impact on increasing skin of color knowledge and educating dermatologists.

Coverage of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

In another study, Bray et al⁸ conducted a PubMed search of articles indexed for MEDLINE from January 2008 to July 2019 to quantify the number of articles specifically focused on DEI in a variety of medical specialties. The field of dermatology had the highest number of articles published on DEI (25) compared to the other specialties, including family medicine (23), orthopedic surgery (12), internal medicine (9), general surgery (7), radiology (6), ophthalmology (2), and anesthesiology (2).⁸ However, Wilson et al⁷ found that, out of all the categories of skin of color articles published in dermatology journals during their study period, those focused on DEI made up less than 1% of the total number of articles. Dermatology is off to a great start compared to other specialties, but there is still more work to do in dermatology for DEI. Cutis’s collaboration with the SOCS has resulted in 6 DEI articles published since 2017.

Think Beyond Dermatology Education

The collaboration between Cutis and the SOCS was established to create a series of articles dedicated to increasing the skin of color dermatology knowledge base of the Cutis readership and beyond; however, increased readership and more citations are needed to amplify the reach of the articles published by these skin of color experts. Cutis’s collaboration with SOCS is one mechanism to increase the skin of color literature, but skin of color and DEI articles outside of this collaboration should continue to be published in each issue of Cutis.

The collaboration between SOCS and Cutis was and continues to be a forward-thinking step toward improving skin of color dermatology education, but there is still work to be done across the medical literature with regard to increasing intentional publication of skin of color articles. Nondermatologist clinicians in the Cutis readership benefit from knowledge of skin of color, as all specialties and primary care will see increased patient diversity in their examination rooms.

To further ensure that primary care is not left behind, Cutis has partnered with The Journal of Family Practice to produce a new column called Dx Across the Skin of Color Spectrum (https://www.mdedge.com/dermatology/dx-across-skin-color-spectrum), which is co-published in both journals.^9,10 These one-page fact sheets highlight images of dermatologic conditions in skin of color as well as images of the same condition in lighter skin, a concept suggested by Cutis Associate Editor, Dr. Candrice R. Heath. The goal of this new column is to increase the accurate diagnosis of dermatologic conditions in skin of color and to highlight health disparities related to a particular condition in an easy-to-understand format. Uniquely, Dr. Heath co-authors this content with family physician Dr. Richard P. Usatine.

Final Thoughts

The entire community of medical journals should continue to develop creative ways to educate their readership. Medical professionals stay up-to-date on best practices through journal articles, textbooks, conferences, and even podcasts. Therefore, it is best to incorporate skin of color knowledge throughout all educational programming, particularly through enduring materials such as journal articles. Wilson et al⁷ suggested that a minimum of 16.8% of a dermatology journal’s articles in each issue should focus on skin of color in addition to special focus issues, as this will work toward more equitable dermatologic care.

[embed:render:related:node:243864]

Knowledge is only part of the equation; compassionate care with cultural humility is the other part. Publishing scientific facts about biology and structure, diagnosis, and treatment selection in skin of color, as well as committing to lifelong learning about the differences in our patients despite the absence of shared life or cultural experiences, may be the key to truly impacting health equity.¹¹ We believe that together we will get there one journal article and one citation at a time.

If by now you have not had a patient ask, “Doctor, what sunscreen should I use NOW?” you will soon.

[embed:render:podcast_episode_embedded:node:202839]

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently published a press release detailing a proposed rule on how manufacturers will be required to test and label sunscreens in the United States.^1,2 Although the press release was complicated and contained much information, the media specifically latched onto the FDA’s consideration of only 2 active sunscreen ingredients—zinc oxide and titanium dioxide—as generally recognized as safe and effective (GRASE). In response, some patients may assume that most sunscreens on the market are dangerous.

[embed:render:related:node:174963]

How did this new proposed rule come about? To understand the process, it takes some explanation of the history of the FDA’s regulation of sunscreens.

How are sunscreens regulated by the FDA?

The regulatory process for sunscreens in the United States is complicated. The FDA regulates sunscreens as over-the-counter (OTC) drugs rather than as cosmetics, which is how they are regulated in most of the rest of the world.

The US sunscreen regulation process began in 1978 with an advance notice of proposed rulemaking from the FDA that included recommendations from an advisory review panel on the safe and effective use of OTC sunscreen products.³ At that time, 21 active sunscreen ingredients and their maximum use concentrations were listed and determined to be safe, or GRASE. It also gave manufacturers guidance on how to test for efficacy with the methodology for determining the sun protection factor (SPF) as well as various labeling requirements. Over the years, the FDA has issued a number of other sunscreen guidelines, such as removing padimate A and adding avobenzone and zinc oxide to the list of GRASE ingredients in the 1990s.^4,5

In 1999, the FDA issued a final rule that listed 16 active sunscreen ingredients and concentrations as GRASE.⁶ There were some restrictions as to certain combinations of ingredients that could not be used in a finished product. Labeling requirements, including a maximum SPF of 30, also were put in place. This final rule established a final sunscreen monograph that was supposed to have been effective by 2002; however, in 2001 the agency delayed the effective date indefinitely because they had not yet established broad-spectrum (UVA) protection testing and labeling.⁷

[embed:render:related:node:153271]

The FDA published a proposed rule in 2007 as well as a final rule in 2011 that again listed the same 16 ingredients as GRASE and specified labeling and testing methods for establishing SPF, broad-spectrum protection, and water-resistance claims.^8,9 The final rule limited product labels to a maximum SPF of 50+; provided directions for use with regard to other labeling elements (eg, warnings); and identified specific claims that would not be allowed on product labels, such as “waterproof” and “all-day protection.”⁹

Nevertheless, an effective final OTC monograph for sunscreen products has not yet been published.

What is the Sunscreen Innovation Act?

In 2014, the US Congress enacted the Sunscreen Innovation Act¹⁰ primarily to mandate that the FDA develop a more efficient way to determine the safety and efficacy of new active sunscreen ingredients that were commonly used in Europe and other parts of the world at the time. Many of these agents were thought to be more protective in the UVA and/or UVB spectrum, and if added to the list of GRASE ingredients available to US manufacturers, they would lead to the development of products that would improve the protection offered by sunscreens marketed to US consumers. The time and extent application (TEA) was established, a method that allowed manufacturers to apply for FDA approval of specific agents. The TEA also suggested allowing data generated in other countries where these agents were already in use for years to be considered in the FDA’s evaluation of the agents as GRASE. In addition, Congress mandated that a final monograph on OTC sunscreens be published by the end of 2019. A number of manufacturers have submitted TEAs for new active sunscreen ingredients, and so far, all have been rejected.

Why is the FDA interested in more safety data?

Since then, the FDA has become concerned not only with the safety and efficacy of newly proposed agents through the TEA but also with the original 16 active sunscreen ingredients listed as GRASE in the 2011 final rule. In the 1970s and 1980s, sunscreen use was limited to beach vacations or outdoor sporting events, but sun-protective behaviors have changed dramatically since that time, with health care providers now becoming cognizant of the growing threats of skin cancer and melanoma as well as the cosmetic concerns of photoaging, thereby recommending daily sunscreen use to their patients. In addition, the science behind sunscreens with higher concentrations of active ingredients intended to achieve higher and higher SPFs and their respective penetration of the skin has evolved, leading to new concerns about systemic toxicity. Early limited research frequently touted by the lay media has suggested that some of these agents might lead to hormonal changes, reproductive toxicity, and carcinogenicity.

[embed:render:related:node:140751]

In November 2016, the FDA issued a guidance for manufacturers that outlined the safety data that would be required to establish an OTC sunscreen active ingredient as GRASE.¹¹ It also provided detailed information about both clinical and nonclinical safety testing, including human irritation and sensitization studies as well as human photosafety studies. In vitro dermal and systemic carcinogenicity studies and animal developmental and reproductive toxicity studies also were required as well studies regarding safety in children.

Many of these recommendations were already being utilized by manufacturers; however, one important change was the requirement for human absorption studies by a maximal usage trial, which more accurately addresses the absorption of sunscreen agents according to actual use. Such studies will be required at the highest allowable concentration of an agent in multiple vehicles and over large body surface areas for considerable exposure times.

This guidance to sunscreen manufacturers was announced to the public in a press release in May 2018.¹²

What are the new regulations?

All of this has culminated in the recent proposed rule, which includes several important proposals²:

• Of the 16 currently marketed active sunscreen ingredients, only 2—zinc oxide and titanium dioxide—are considered GRASE. Two ingredients—trolamine salicylate and para-aminobenzoic acid—are considered non-GRASE, but there is not enough information at this time to determine if the remaining 12 ingredients are GRASE. The FDA is working with manufacturers to obtain sufficient information to make this determination.

• Approved dosage formulations include sprays, oils, lotions, creams, gels, butters, pastes, ointments, and sticks. Further information is needed regarding powders before they can be considered.

• The maximum SPF will be increased from 50+ to 60+.

• Sunscreens with an SPF of 15 or higher are required to provide broad-spectrum protection commensurate with the SPF, expanding on critical wavelength testing.

• There are new labeling changes, including a requirement that active ingredients be listed on the front of the packaging.
• Sunscreen products that contain insect repellents are considered non-GRASE.

What’s next?

The process for the proposed final rule has now entered a 90-day public comment period that will end on May 27, 2019; however, it is unlikely that a final monograph as mandated by Congress will be produced by the end of this year.

[embed:render:related:node:118756]

Sunscreen manufacturers currently are coordinating a response to the proposed rule through the Personal Care Products Council and the Consumer Healthcare Products Association Sunscreen Task Force. It is likely that the new required testing will be costly, with estimates exceeding tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. In all likelihood, the number of active ingredients that the industry will agree to support with costly testing will be fewer than the 12 that are now on the list. It also is likely that this process will lead to fewer sunscreen products for consumers to choose from and almost certainly at a higher cost.

What do we tell patients in the meantime?

According to the FDA’s rules, it was necessary that this process was made public, but it will almost certainly concern our patients as to the safety of the sunscreen products they have been using. We should be concerned that some of our patients may limit their use of sunscreens because of safety concerns.

There is no question that, as physicians, we want to “first, do no harm,” so we should all be interested in assuring our patients that our sunscreen recommendations are safe and we support the FDA proposal for additional data. The good news is that when this process is completed, a large number of agents will likely be found to be GRASE. When the FDA finally gives its imprimatur to sunscreens, it will hopefully help to silence those naysayers who report that sunscreens are dangerous for consumers; however, it has been suggested by some in industry that the new testing required may take at least 5 years.

What should dermatologists do when we are asked, “What sunscreen should I use NOW?” For most patients, I would explain the regulatory process and assure them that the risk-benefit ratio at this point suggests they should continue using the same sunscreens that they are currently using. For special situations such as pregnant women and children, it may be best to suggest products that contain only the 2 GRASE inorganic agents.

If by now you have not had a patient ask, “Doctor, what sunscreen should I use NOW?” you will soon.

[embed:render:podcast_episode_embedded:node:202839]

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently published a press release detailing a proposed rule on how manufacturers will be required to test and label sunscreens in the United States.^1,2 Although the press release was complicated and contained much information, the media specifically latched onto the FDA’s consideration of only 2 active sunscreen ingredients—zinc oxide and titanium dioxide—as generally recognized as safe and effective (GRASE). In response, some patients may assume that most sunscreens on the market are dangerous.

[embed:render:related:node:174963]

How did this new proposed rule come about? To understand the process, it takes some explanation of the history of the FDA’s regulation of sunscreens.

How are sunscreens regulated by the FDA?

The regulatory process for sunscreens in the United States is complicated. The FDA regulates sunscreens as over-the-counter (OTC) drugs rather than as cosmetics, which is how they are regulated in most of the rest of the world.

The US sunscreen regulation process began in 1978 with an advance notice of proposed rulemaking from the FDA that included recommendations from an advisory review panel on the safe and effective use of OTC sunscreen products.³ At that time, 21 active sunscreen ingredients and their maximum use concentrations were listed and determined to be safe, or GRASE. It also gave manufacturers guidance on how to test for efficacy with the methodology for determining the sun protection factor (SPF) as well as various labeling requirements. Over the years, the FDA has issued a number of other sunscreen guidelines, such as removing padimate A and adding avobenzone and zinc oxide to the list of GRASE ingredients in the 1990s.^4,5

In 1999, the FDA issued a final rule that listed 16 active sunscreen ingredients and concentrations as GRASE.⁶ There were some restrictions as to certain combinations of ingredients that could not be used in a finished product. Labeling requirements, including a maximum SPF of 30, also were put in place. This final rule established a final sunscreen monograph that was supposed to have been effective by 2002; however, in 2001 the agency delayed the effective date indefinitely because they had not yet established broad-spectrum (UVA) protection testing and labeling.⁷

[embed:render:related:node:153271]

The FDA published a proposed rule in 2007 as well as a final rule in 2011 that again listed the same 16 ingredients as GRASE and specified labeling and testing methods for establishing SPF, broad-spectrum protection, and water-resistance claims.^8,9 The final rule limited product labels to a maximum SPF of 50+; provided directions for use with regard to other labeling elements (eg, warnings); and identified specific claims that would not be allowed on product labels, such as “waterproof” and “all-day protection.”⁹

Nevertheless, an effective final OTC monograph for sunscreen products has not yet been published.

What is the Sunscreen Innovation Act?

In 2014, the US Congress enacted the Sunscreen Innovation Act¹⁰ primarily to mandate that the FDA develop a more efficient way to determine the safety and efficacy of new active sunscreen ingredients that were commonly used in Europe and other parts of the world at the time. Many of these agents were thought to be more protective in the UVA and/or UVB spectrum, and if added to the list of GRASE ingredients available to US manufacturers, they would lead to the development of products that would improve the protection offered by sunscreens marketed to US consumers. The time and extent application (TEA) was established, a method that allowed manufacturers to apply for FDA approval of specific agents. The TEA also suggested allowing data generated in other countries where these agents were already in use for years to be considered in the FDA’s evaluation of the agents as GRASE. In addition, Congress mandated that a final monograph on OTC sunscreens be published by the end of 2019. A number of manufacturers have submitted TEAs for new active sunscreen ingredients, and so far, all have been rejected.

Why is the FDA interested in more safety data?

Since then, the FDA has become concerned not only with the safety and efficacy of newly proposed agents through the TEA but also with the original 16 active sunscreen ingredients listed as GRASE in the 2011 final rule. In the 1970s and 1980s, sunscreen use was limited to beach vacations or outdoor sporting events, but sun-protective behaviors have changed dramatically since that time, with health care providers now becoming cognizant of the growing threats of skin cancer and melanoma as well as the cosmetic concerns of photoaging, thereby recommending daily sunscreen use to their patients. In addition, the science behind sunscreens with higher concentrations of active ingredients intended to achieve higher and higher SPFs and their respective penetration of the skin has evolved, leading to new concerns about systemic toxicity. Early limited research frequently touted by the lay media has suggested that some of these agents might lead to hormonal changes, reproductive toxicity, and carcinogenicity.

[embed:render:related:node:140751]

In November 2016, the FDA issued a guidance for manufacturers that outlined the safety data that would be required to establish an OTC sunscreen active ingredient as GRASE.¹¹ It also provided detailed information about both clinical and nonclinical safety testing, including human irritation and sensitization studies as well as human photosafety studies. In vitro dermal and systemic carcinogenicity studies and animal developmental and reproductive toxicity studies also were required as well studies regarding safety in children.

Many of these recommendations were already being utilized by manufacturers; however, one important change was the requirement for human absorption studies by a maximal usage trial, which more accurately addresses the absorption of sunscreen agents according to actual use. Such studies will be required at the highest allowable concentration of an agent in multiple vehicles and over large body surface areas for considerable exposure times.

This guidance to sunscreen manufacturers was announced to the public in a press release in May 2018.¹²

What are the new regulations?

All of this has culminated in the recent proposed rule, which includes several important proposals²:

• Of the 16 currently marketed active sunscreen ingredients, only 2—zinc oxide and titanium dioxide—are considered GRASE. Two ingredients—trolamine salicylate and para-aminobenzoic acid—are considered non-GRASE, but there is not enough information at this time to determine if the remaining 12 ingredients are GRASE. The FDA is working with manufacturers to obtain sufficient information to make this determination.

• Approved dosage formulations include sprays, oils, lotions, creams, gels, butters, pastes, ointments, and sticks. Further information is needed regarding powders before they can be considered.

• The maximum SPF will be increased from 50+ to 60+.

• Sunscreens with an SPF of 15 or higher are required to provide broad-spectrum protection commensurate with the SPF, expanding on critical wavelength testing.

• There are new labeling changes, including a requirement that active ingredients be listed on the front of the packaging.
• Sunscreen products that contain insect repellents are considered non-GRASE.

What’s next?

The process for the proposed final rule has now entered a 90-day public comment period that will end on May 27, 2019; however, it is unlikely that a final monograph as mandated by Congress will be produced by the end of this year.

[embed:render:related:node:118756]

Sunscreen manufacturers currently are coordinating a response to the proposed rule through the Personal Care Products Council and the Consumer Healthcare Products Association Sunscreen Task Force. It is likely that the new required testing will be costly, with estimates exceeding tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. In all likelihood, the number of active ingredients that the industry will agree to support with costly testing will be fewer than the 12 that are now on the list. It also is likely that this process will lead to fewer sunscreen products for consumers to choose from and almost certainly at a higher cost.

What do we tell patients in the meantime?

According to the FDA’s rules, it was necessary that this process was made public, but it will almost certainly concern our patients as to the safety of the sunscreen products they have been using. We should be concerned that some of our patients may limit their use of sunscreens because of safety concerns.

There is no question that, as physicians, we want to “first, do no harm,” so we should all be interested in assuring our patients that our sunscreen recommendations are safe and we support the FDA proposal for additional data. The good news is that when this process is completed, a large number of agents will likely be found to be GRASE. When the FDA finally gives its imprimatur to sunscreens, it will hopefully help to silence those naysayers who report that sunscreens are dangerous for consumers; however, it has been suggested by some in industry that the new testing required may take at least 5 years.

What should dermatologists do when we are asked, “What sunscreen should I use NOW?” For most patients, I would explain the regulatory process and assure them that the risk-benefit ratio at this point suggests they should continue using the same sunscreens that they are currently using. For special situations such as pregnant women and children, it may be best to suggest products that contain only the 2 GRASE inorganic agents.

If by now you have not had a patient ask, “Doctor, what sunscreen should I use NOW?” you will soon.

[embed:render:podcast_episode_embedded:node:202839]

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently published a press release detailing a proposed rule on how manufacturers will be required to test and label sunscreens in the United States.^1,2 Although the press release was complicated and contained much information, the media specifically latched onto the FDA’s consideration of only 2 active sunscreen ingredients—zinc oxide and titanium dioxide—as generally recognized as safe and effective (GRASE). In response, some patients may assume that most sunscreens on the market are dangerous.

[embed:render:related:node:174963]

How did this new proposed rule come about? To understand the process, it takes some explanation of the history of the FDA’s regulation of sunscreens.

How are sunscreens regulated by the FDA?

The regulatory process for sunscreens in the United States is complicated. The FDA regulates sunscreens as over-the-counter (OTC) drugs rather than as cosmetics, which is how they are regulated in most of the rest of the world.

The US sunscreen regulation process began in 1978 with an advance notice of proposed rulemaking from the FDA that included recommendations from an advisory review panel on the safe and effective use of OTC sunscreen products.³ At that time, 21 active sunscreen ingredients and their maximum use concentrations were listed and determined to be safe, or GRASE. It also gave manufacturers guidance on how to test for efficacy with the methodology for determining the sun protection factor (SPF) as well as various labeling requirements. Over the years, the FDA has issued a number of other sunscreen guidelines, such as removing padimate A and adding avobenzone and zinc oxide to the list of GRASE ingredients in the 1990s.^4,5

In 1999, the FDA issued a final rule that listed 16 active sunscreen ingredients and concentrations as GRASE.⁶ There were some restrictions as to certain combinations of ingredients that could not be used in a finished product. Labeling requirements, including a maximum SPF of 30, also were put in place. This final rule established a final sunscreen monograph that was supposed to have been effective by 2002; however, in 2001 the agency delayed the effective date indefinitely because they had not yet established broad-spectrum (UVA) protection testing and labeling.⁷

[embed:render:related:node:153271]

The FDA published a proposed rule in 2007 as well as a final rule in 2011 that again listed the same 16 ingredients as GRASE and specified labeling and testing methods for establishing SPF, broad-spectrum protection, and water-resistance claims.^8,9 The final rule limited product labels to a maximum SPF of 50+; provided directions for use with regard to other labeling elements (eg, warnings); and identified specific claims that would not be allowed on product labels, such as “waterproof” and “all-day protection.”⁹

Nevertheless, an effective final OTC monograph for sunscreen products has not yet been published.

What is the Sunscreen Innovation Act?

In 2014, the US Congress enacted the Sunscreen Innovation Act¹⁰ primarily to mandate that the FDA develop a more efficient way to determine the safety and efficacy of new active sunscreen ingredients that were commonly used in Europe and other parts of the world at the time. Many of these agents were thought to be more protective in the UVA and/or UVB spectrum, and if added to the list of GRASE ingredients available to US manufacturers, they would lead to the development of products that would improve the protection offered by sunscreens marketed to US consumers. The time and extent application (TEA) was established, a method that allowed manufacturers to apply for FDA approval of specific agents. The TEA also suggested allowing data generated in other countries where these agents were already in use for years to be considered in the FDA’s evaluation of the agents as GRASE. In addition, Congress mandated that a final monograph on OTC sunscreens be published by the end of 2019. A number of manufacturers have submitted TEAs for new active sunscreen ingredients, and so far, all have been rejected.

Why is the FDA interested in more safety data?

Since then, the FDA has become concerned not only with the safety and efficacy of newly proposed agents through the TEA but also with the original 16 active sunscreen ingredients listed as GRASE in the 2011 final rule. In the 1970s and 1980s, sunscreen use was limited to beach vacations or outdoor sporting events, but sun-protective behaviors have changed dramatically since that time, with health care providers now becoming cognizant of the growing threats of skin cancer and melanoma as well as the cosmetic concerns of photoaging, thereby recommending daily sunscreen use to their patients. In addition, the science behind sunscreens with higher concentrations of active ingredients intended to achieve higher and higher SPFs and their respective penetration of the skin has evolved, leading to new concerns about systemic toxicity. Early limited research frequently touted by the lay media has suggested that some of these agents might lead to hormonal changes, reproductive toxicity, and carcinogenicity.

[embed:render:related:node:140751]

In November 2016, the FDA issued a guidance for manufacturers that outlined the safety data that would be required to establish an OTC sunscreen active ingredient as GRASE.¹¹ It also provided detailed information about both clinical and nonclinical safety testing, including human irritation and sensitization studies as well as human photosafety studies. In vitro dermal and systemic carcinogenicity studies and animal developmental and reproductive toxicity studies also were required as well studies regarding safety in children.

Many of these recommendations were already being utilized by manufacturers; however, one important change was the requirement for human absorption studies by a maximal usage trial, which more accurately addresses the absorption of sunscreen agents according to actual use. Such studies will be required at the highest allowable concentration of an agent in multiple vehicles and over large body surface areas for considerable exposure times.

This guidance to sunscreen manufacturers was announced to the public in a press release in May 2018.¹²

What are the new regulations?

All of this has culminated in the recent proposed rule, which includes several important proposals²:

• Of the 16 currently marketed active sunscreen ingredients, only 2—zinc oxide and titanium dioxide—are considered GRASE. Two ingredients—trolamine salicylate and para-aminobenzoic acid—are considered non-GRASE, but there is not enough information at this time to determine if the remaining 12 ingredients are GRASE. The FDA is working with manufacturers to obtain sufficient information to make this determination.

• Approved dosage formulations include sprays, oils, lotions, creams, gels, butters, pastes, ointments, and sticks. Further information is needed regarding powders before they can be considered.

• The maximum SPF will be increased from 50+ to 60+.

• Sunscreens with an SPF of 15 or higher are required to provide broad-spectrum protection commensurate with the SPF, expanding on critical wavelength testing.

• There are new labeling changes, including a requirement that active ingredients be listed on the front of the packaging.
• Sunscreen products that contain insect repellents are considered non-GRASE.

What’s next?

The process for the proposed final rule has now entered a 90-day public comment period that will end on May 27, 2019; however, it is unlikely that a final monograph as mandated by Congress will be produced by the end of this year.

[embed:render:related:node:118756]

Sunscreen manufacturers currently are coordinating a response to the proposed rule through the Personal Care Products Council and the Consumer Healthcare Products Association Sunscreen Task Force. It is likely that the new required testing will be costly, with estimates exceeding tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. In all likelihood, the number of active ingredients that the industry will agree to support with costly testing will be fewer than the 12 that are now on the list. It also is likely that this process will lead to fewer sunscreen products for consumers to choose from and almost certainly at a higher cost.

What do we tell patients in the meantime?

According to the FDA’s rules, it was necessary that this process was made public, but it will almost certainly concern our patients as to the safety of the sunscreen products they have been using. We should be concerned that some of our patients may limit their use of sunscreens because of safety concerns.

There is no question that, as physicians, we want to “first, do no harm,” so we should all be interested in assuring our patients that our sunscreen recommendations are safe and we support the FDA proposal for additional data. The good news is that when this process is completed, a large number of agents will likely be found to be GRASE. When the FDA finally gives its imprimatur to sunscreens, it will hopefully help to silence those naysayers who report that sunscreens are dangerous for consumers; however, it has been suggested by some in industry that the new testing required may take at least 5 years.

What should dermatologists do when we are asked, “What sunscreen should I use NOW?” For most patients, I would explain the regulatory process and assure them that the risk-benefit ratio at this point suggests they should continue using the same sunscreens that they are currently using. For special situations such as pregnant women and children, it may be best to suggest products that contain only the 2 GRASE inorganic agents.

The Digital Revolution has invaded the House of Medicine, which is not really news since the invasion has been long-standing, but it seems to be generating more interest and concern in recent months. The American Medical Association recently created the Digital Health Implementation Playbook to lend guidance in developing technologies that are fundamentally altering the manner in which patients interact with health care providers.¹ The playbook lays out specific steps for developing and implementing digital health technologies such as remote patient monitoring devices. The goal of the playbook is to make certain that such devices are accurate, reliable, and validated as valuable additions to high-quality patient care.¹

In the February 2018 issue of Cutis, Masud et al² evaluated 44 patient-directed mobile applications (apps) for dermatologic conditions and developed a schematic for evaluating their value in providing valid usable information for patients. They found that most of the apps failed to live up to their purported usefulness in patient education.² I am certain we have all seen numerous examples on the Internet, many times brought to us by patients, of fallacious and inaccurate information about the diagnosis and treatment of dermatologic conditions that are actually harmful to the care of our patients.

A more upsetting trend in recent years is the proliferation of open-access journals. Although such digital journals can result in more rapid dissemination of valid scientific information, many of them do not follow a true peer-review process. So-called predatory journals from for-profit unethical publishers are increasing at an alarming rate.³

Furthermore, there is a need to present data more accurately and in formats that provide more meaningful interpretation, according to a recent Letter From the Editor in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.⁴ Elston⁴ wrote: “Be honest about your data and the limitations of the study design.” He cautioned further about the proper use of statistical analysis.

As dermatologists, how do we make certain that the Digital Revolution results in better care of our patients? The answer, of course, is in education of the practitioner and our young colleagues in training. Although most Cutis readers still access the print version of our journal, more and more readers are accessing our digital format. Online we are able to offer readers the peer-reviewed content you have known to trust and rely on to improve your care of patients as well as other educational tools. Furthermore, we can provide readers access to additional charts and tables pertaining to research published in the print journal.

In January 2019 the Cutis website will merge with Dermatology News, our sister news publication, to become MDedge Dermatology (www.mdedge.com/dermatology). This site will be your new one-stop destination for timely news and clinical content you can trust from both publications. This interactive site is designed to help clinicians quickly find the information they need to improve the treatment and care of patients with conditions affecting the hair, skin, and nails. You will have free access to digital resources such as procedural videos, podcasts, image quizzes, board review, and resident resources, as well as an archive of Cutis content dating back to 2000.

As we at Cutis broaden our digital footprint, we look forward to providing our readers with a larger volume of clinically relevant content in more easily accessed formats while maintaining our commitment to valid trustworthy information. In the coming months we look forward to joining with you in this new digital endeavor, and as always, we appreciate the input of our readers during this process.

The Digital Revolution has invaded the House of Medicine, which is not really news since the invasion has been long-standing, but it seems to be generating more interest and concern in recent months. The American Medical Association recently created the Digital Health Implementation Playbook to lend guidance in developing technologies that are fundamentally altering the manner in which patients interact with health care providers.¹ The playbook lays out specific steps for developing and implementing digital health technologies such as remote patient monitoring devices. The goal of the playbook is to make certain that such devices are accurate, reliable, and validated as valuable additions to high-quality patient care.¹

In the February 2018 issue of Cutis, Masud et al² evaluated 44 patient-directed mobile applications (apps) for dermatologic conditions and developed a schematic for evaluating their value in providing valid usable information for patients. They found that most of the apps failed to live up to their purported usefulness in patient education.² I am certain we have all seen numerous examples on the Internet, many times brought to us by patients, of fallacious and inaccurate information about the diagnosis and treatment of dermatologic conditions that are actually harmful to the care of our patients.

A more upsetting trend in recent years is the proliferation of open-access journals. Although such digital journals can result in more rapid dissemination of valid scientific information, many of them do not follow a true peer-review process. So-called predatory journals from for-profit unethical publishers are increasing at an alarming rate.³

Furthermore, there is a need to present data more accurately and in formats that provide more meaningful interpretation, according to a recent Letter From the Editor in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.⁴ Elston⁴ wrote: “Be honest about your data and the limitations of the study design.” He cautioned further about the proper use of statistical analysis.

As dermatologists, how do we make certain that the Digital Revolution results in better care of our patients? The answer, of course, is in education of the practitioner and our young colleagues in training. Although most Cutis readers still access the print version of our journal, more and more readers are accessing our digital format. Online we are able to offer readers the peer-reviewed content you have known to trust and rely on to improve your care of patients as well as other educational tools. Furthermore, we can provide readers access to additional charts and tables pertaining to research published in the print journal.

In January 2019 the Cutis website will merge with Dermatology News, our sister news publication, to become MDedge Dermatology (www.mdedge.com/dermatology). This site will be your new one-stop destination for timely news and clinical content you can trust from both publications. This interactive site is designed to help clinicians quickly find the information they need to improve the treatment and care of patients with conditions affecting the hair, skin, and nails. You will have free access to digital resources such as procedural videos, podcasts, image quizzes, board review, and resident resources, as well as an archive of Cutis content dating back to 2000.

As we at Cutis broaden our digital footprint, we look forward to providing our readers with a larger volume of clinically relevant content in more easily accessed formats while maintaining our commitment to valid trustworthy information. In the coming months we look forward to joining with you in this new digital endeavor, and as always, we appreciate the input of our readers during this process.

The Digital Revolution has invaded the House of Medicine, which is not really news since the invasion has been long-standing, but it seems to be generating more interest and concern in recent months. The American Medical Association recently created the Digital Health Implementation Playbook to lend guidance in developing technologies that are fundamentally altering the manner in which patients interact with health care providers.¹ The playbook lays out specific steps for developing and implementing digital health technologies such as remote patient monitoring devices. The goal of the playbook is to make certain that such devices are accurate, reliable, and validated as valuable additions to high-quality patient care.¹

In the February 2018 issue of Cutis, Masud et al² evaluated 44 patient-directed mobile applications (apps) for dermatologic conditions and developed a schematic for evaluating their value in providing valid usable information for patients. They found that most of the apps failed to live up to their purported usefulness in patient education.² I am certain we have all seen numerous examples on the Internet, many times brought to us by patients, of fallacious and inaccurate information about the diagnosis and treatment of dermatologic conditions that are actually harmful to the care of our patients.

A more upsetting trend in recent years is the proliferation of open-access journals. Although such digital journals can result in more rapid dissemination of valid scientific information, many of them do not follow a true peer-review process. So-called predatory journals from for-profit unethical publishers are increasing at an alarming rate.³

Furthermore, there is a need to present data more accurately and in formats that provide more meaningful interpretation, according to a recent Letter From the Editor in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.⁴ Elston⁴ wrote: “Be honest about your data and the limitations of the study design.” He cautioned further about the proper use of statistical analysis.

As dermatologists, how do we make certain that the Digital Revolution results in better care of our patients? The answer, of course, is in education of the practitioner and our young colleagues in training. Although most Cutis readers still access the print version of our journal, more and more readers are accessing our digital format. Online we are able to offer readers the peer-reviewed content you have known to trust and rely on to improve your care of patients as well as other educational tools. Furthermore, we can provide readers access to additional charts and tables pertaining to research published in the print journal.

In January 2019 the Cutis website will merge with Dermatology News, our sister news publication, to become MDedge Dermatology (www.mdedge.com/dermatology). This site will be your new one-stop destination for timely news and clinical content you can trust from both publications. This interactive site is designed to help clinicians quickly find the information they need to improve the treatment and care of patients with conditions affecting the hair, skin, and nails. You will have free access to digital resources such as procedural videos, podcasts, image quizzes, board review, and resident resources, as well as an archive of Cutis content dating back to 2000.

As we at Cutis broaden our digital footprint, we look forward to providing our readers with a larger volume of clinically relevant content in more easily accessed formats while maintaining our commitment to valid trustworthy information. In the coming months we look forward to joining with you in this new digital endeavor, and as always, we appreciate the input of our readers during this process.

The Diagnosis: Allergic Contact Dermatitis

An allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) to acrylates was suspected and 4 patches were applied to the forearm (the North American Standard Series of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group). The patches were 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2-HEMA) 2.0% permissible exposure limit (peL), ethyl acrylate 0.1% peL, tosylamide formaldehyde resin 10.0% peL, and methyl methacrylate 2.0% peL. A reading at 72 hours was performed and showed a positive reaction to hydroxyethyl methacrylate, ethyl acrylate, and methyl methacrylate, and a negative patch test to tosylamide formaldehyde resin (nail polish)(Figure). The patient was diagnosed with an allergic contact hypersensitivity to the aforementioned acrylates and instructed to avoid artificial nails and acrylate glues. She also was started on oral biotin supplements. On 6-month follow-up the patient had regrowth of all 10 fingernails without brittleness or splitting. She was able to use nail polishes but avoided all acrylic artificial nails and acrylate-containing personal care products.

hibler1.png

Acrylate Allergy and Artificial Nails

Acrylates are plastic materials formed by polymerization of acrylic or methacrylic acid monomers and have been cited as a major cause of occupational and nonoccupational contact dermatitis. Contact dermatitis to acrylates in artificial nails was first reported in the 1950s.^1,2 Products containing 100% methyl methacrylate monomers in acrylic nails were banned by the US Food and Drug Administration in the early 1970s after receiving a number of complaints.³ However, no regulation prohibits the use of methyl methacrylate monomer in cosmetic products, and various methacrylate and acrylate monomers remain widely used.⁴ With a growing popularity in artificial nails, it is expected the number of sensitized persons will increase.

Acrylate allergy from sculptured nails concern self-curing resins made from a polymer powder and a liquid monomer solution. Advantages of new UV-cured products include the lack of unpleasant smell and simplified modeling. They also do not require an irritant, such as methacrylic acid, as a bonding agent. Instead, 2-HEMA and 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate are added. These photobonded nails colloquially are called gel nails (acid free) as opposed to acrylic nails (using methacrylic acid as a primer). It is important to note that the esters of acrylic acid but not the acid itself sensitize patients, and sensitization is not caused by the uncured gel or the monomer solution but by the remaining monomers in the cured plastic nail and the dust filings that are produced during the finishing process.

Clinical Presentation

Symptoms of an ACD to nail acrylates include pruritus and fingertip dermatitis along with nail plate dystrophy. There may be pruritus at the nail base, with subsequent dryness, thickening, and onycholysis. The brittle nails may become split, discolored, and develop paronychia. Inadvertent contact with glue monomers or other acrylate-containing substances may cause eczematous lesions at distant sites. Avoidance of the allergen often results in complete restoration of the normal nail and fingertip within months.

Sensitization

Acrylates and methacrylates are ubiquitous materials used for both industrial and commercial applications. Due to their widespread industrial use, contact allergies to acrylates including 2-HEMA, 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate, and triethyleneglycol diacrylate (TREGDA) are common. Cross-reaction of these compounds has been observed and is postulated to be due to reaction of the (meth)acrylate carboxyethyl group with the receptors of antigen-presenting cells.⁵ As a result, an individual with an acrylate allergy sensitized to one allergen often is allergic to its similar compounds and cross-reactors and must avoid the assortment of compounds containing these ingredients, which is important for individuals with occupational sensitization to a particular acrylate who is subsequently susceptible to other acrylate-containing compounds triggering allergic reactions when reexposure occurs in different settings.

Allergens and Occupational Exposure

Acrylates in cosmetic nail products are a source of ACD for not only the customer but also the manicurist.⁶ The most frequently cited sources of ACD in beauticians are acrylate chemicals.⁷ However, acrylate compounds are an occupational hazard for a number of other specialists, including dentists and dental technicians, histology technicians, and individuals in the printing industry.^8,9 Other individuals may be sensitized to acrylates through their inclusion in adhesives, dental bonding agents, hearing aids, electrocardiogram electrodes, artificial bone cement, and a myriad of other medical and nonmedical applications.^4,10-12 For workers who cannot avoid occupational exposure to these allergens, polyvinyl alcohol and multilayer laminate gloves are recommended, as natural rubber latex gloves do not always provide adequate protection from many of these agents.¹⁰

Testing for Suspected Acrylate Allergy

Cross-reactivity among acrylates is widely considered in the literature but remains enigmatic and is an important consideration with regard to routine patch test screening.¹³ In the case of an acrylate allergy to nail products, using 2-HEMA and ethylene glycol dimethacrylate is effective in detecting sensitization by photobonded nails and in patients sensitized by powder liquid products.¹⁴ One study showed a patch test panel including 2-HEMA, ethylene glycol dimethacrylate, and TREGDA was effective in identifying the majority of individuals with an allergy to acrylates in nail products and nail technicians.¹⁵ Another study has shown the most commonly positive testing allergens to be HEMA, ethyl acrylate, and methyl methacrylate.¹⁶ If one is patch testing only one chemical, it appears 2-HEMA is preferred.¹⁷ However, broader panels of screening allergens are necessary to achieve an accurate diagnosis. Furthermore, different panels of test allergens have been shown to vary in their ability to detect an acrylate allergy in different occupational exposures.¹² 

The time to patch test read also is important. A standard read at 72 hours is warranted; however, one study showed if only one read at day 3 was done without a subsequent day 7 read, then 25% of TREGDA and 50% of 2-HEMA allergies would have been missed in patients with occupational acrylate allergy.¹⁵ Other studies have reported late-appearing and long-lasting test reactions when testing for an acrylate allergy.^18,19 Clinicians should be cognizant that an acrylate allergy may be present even if initial screening is negative but the history and clinical picture are suggestive.

The Diagnosis: Allergic Contact Dermatitis

An allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) to acrylates was suspected and 4 patches were applied to the forearm (the North American Standard Series of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group). The patches were 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2-HEMA) 2.0% permissible exposure limit (peL), ethyl acrylate 0.1% peL, tosylamide formaldehyde resin 10.0% peL, and methyl methacrylate 2.0% peL. A reading at 72 hours was performed and showed a positive reaction to hydroxyethyl methacrylate, ethyl acrylate, and methyl methacrylate, and a negative patch test to tosylamide formaldehyde resin (nail polish)(Figure). The patient was diagnosed with an allergic contact hypersensitivity to the aforementioned acrylates and instructed to avoid artificial nails and acrylate glues. She also was started on oral biotin supplements. On 6-month follow-up the patient had regrowth of all 10 fingernails without brittleness or splitting. She was able to use nail polishes but avoided all acrylic artificial nails and acrylate-containing personal care products.

hibler1.png

Acrylate Allergy and Artificial Nails

Acrylates are plastic materials formed by polymerization of acrylic or methacrylic acid monomers and have been cited as a major cause of occupational and nonoccupational contact dermatitis. Contact dermatitis to acrylates in artificial nails was first reported in the 1950s.^1,2 Products containing 100% methyl methacrylate monomers in acrylic nails were banned by the US Food and Drug Administration in the early 1970s after receiving a number of complaints.³ However, no regulation prohibits the use of methyl methacrylate monomer in cosmetic products, and various methacrylate and acrylate monomers remain widely used.⁴ With a growing popularity in artificial nails, it is expected the number of sensitized persons will increase.

Acrylate allergy from sculptured nails concern self-curing resins made from a polymer powder and a liquid monomer solution. Advantages of new UV-cured products include the lack of unpleasant smell and simplified modeling. They also do not require an irritant, such as methacrylic acid, as a bonding agent. Instead, 2-HEMA and 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate are added. These photobonded nails colloquially are called gel nails (acid free) as opposed to acrylic nails (using methacrylic acid as a primer). It is important to note that the esters of acrylic acid but not the acid itself sensitize patients, and sensitization is not caused by the uncured gel or the monomer solution but by the remaining monomers in the cured plastic nail and the dust filings that are produced during the finishing process.

Clinical Presentation

Symptoms of an ACD to nail acrylates include pruritus and fingertip dermatitis along with nail plate dystrophy. There may be pruritus at the nail base, with subsequent dryness, thickening, and onycholysis. The brittle nails may become split, discolored, and develop paronychia. Inadvertent contact with glue monomers or other acrylate-containing substances may cause eczematous lesions at distant sites. Avoidance of the allergen often results in complete restoration of the normal nail and fingertip within months.

Sensitization

Acrylates and methacrylates are ubiquitous materials used for both industrial and commercial applications. Due to their widespread industrial use, contact allergies to acrylates including 2-HEMA, 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate, and triethyleneglycol diacrylate (TREGDA) are common. Cross-reaction of these compounds has been observed and is postulated to be due to reaction of the (meth)acrylate carboxyethyl group with the receptors of antigen-presenting cells.⁵ As a result, an individual with an acrylate allergy sensitized to one allergen often is allergic to its similar compounds and cross-reactors and must avoid the assortment of compounds containing these ingredients, which is important for individuals with occupational sensitization to a particular acrylate who is subsequently susceptible to other acrylate-containing compounds triggering allergic reactions when reexposure occurs in different settings.

Allergens and Occupational Exposure

Acrylates in cosmetic nail products are a source of ACD for not only the customer but also the manicurist.⁶ The most frequently cited sources of ACD in beauticians are acrylate chemicals.⁷ However, acrylate compounds are an occupational hazard for a number of other specialists, including dentists and dental technicians, histology technicians, and individuals in the printing industry.^8,9 Other individuals may be sensitized to acrylates through their inclusion in adhesives, dental bonding agents, hearing aids, electrocardiogram electrodes, artificial bone cement, and a myriad of other medical and nonmedical applications.^4,10-12 For workers who cannot avoid occupational exposure to these allergens, polyvinyl alcohol and multilayer laminate gloves are recommended, as natural rubber latex gloves do not always provide adequate protection from many of these agents.¹⁰

Testing for Suspected Acrylate Allergy

Cross-reactivity among acrylates is widely considered in the literature but remains enigmatic and is an important consideration with regard to routine patch test screening.¹³ In the case of an acrylate allergy to nail products, using 2-HEMA and ethylene glycol dimethacrylate is effective in detecting sensitization by photobonded nails and in patients sensitized by powder liquid products.¹⁴ One study showed a patch test panel including 2-HEMA, ethylene glycol dimethacrylate, and TREGDA was effective in identifying the majority of individuals with an allergy to acrylates in nail products and nail technicians.¹⁵ Another study has shown the most commonly positive testing allergens to be HEMA, ethyl acrylate, and methyl methacrylate.¹⁶ If one is patch testing only one chemical, it appears 2-HEMA is preferred.¹⁷ However, broader panels of screening allergens are necessary to achieve an accurate diagnosis. Furthermore, different panels of test allergens have been shown to vary in their ability to detect an acrylate allergy in different occupational exposures.¹² 

The time to patch test read also is important. A standard read at 72 hours is warranted; however, one study showed if only one read at day 3 was done without a subsequent day 7 read, then 25% of TREGDA and 50% of 2-HEMA allergies would have been missed in patients with occupational acrylate allergy.¹⁵ Other studies have reported late-appearing and long-lasting test reactions when testing for an acrylate allergy.^18,19 Clinicians should be cognizant that an acrylate allergy may be present even if initial screening is negative but the history and clinical picture are suggestive.

The Diagnosis: Allergic Contact Dermatitis

An allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) to acrylates was suspected and 4 patches were applied to the forearm (the North American Standard Series of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group). The patches were 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2-HEMA) 2.0% permissible exposure limit (peL), ethyl acrylate 0.1% peL, tosylamide formaldehyde resin 10.0% peL, and methyl methacrylate 2.0% peL. A reading at 72 hours was performed and showed a positive reaction to hydroxyethyl methacrylate, ethyl acrylate, and methyl methacrylate, and a negative patch test to tosylamide formaldehyde resin (nail polish)(Figure). The patient was diagnosed with an allergic contact hypersensitivity to the aforementioned acrylates and instructed to avoid artificial nails and acrylate glues. She also was started on oral biotin supplements. On 6-month follow-up the patient had regrowth of all 10 fingernails without brittleness or splitting. She was able to use nail polishes but avoided all acrylic artificial nails and acrylate-containing personal care products.

hibler1.png

Acrylate Allergy and Artificial Nails

Acrylates are plastic materials formed by polymerization of acrylic or methacrylic acid monomers and have been cited as a major cause of occupational and nonoccupational contact dermatitis. Contact dermatitis to acrylates in artificial nails was first reported in the 1950s.^1,2 Products containing 100% methyl methacrylate monomers in acrylic nails were banned by the US Food and Drug Administration in the early 1970s after receiving a number of complaints.³ However, no regulation prohibits the use of methyl methacrylate monomer in cosmetic products, and various methacrylate and acrylate monomers remain widely used.⁴ With a growing popularity in artificial nails, it is expected the number of sensitized persons will increase.

Acrylate allergy from sculptured nails concern self-curing resins made from a polymer powder and a liquid monomer solution. Advantages of new UV-cured products include the lack of unpleasant smell and simplified modeling. They also do not require an irritant, such as methacrylic acid, as a bonding agent. Instead, 2-HEMA and 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate are added. These photobonded nails colloquially are called gel nails (acid free) as opposed to acrylic nails (using methacrylic acid as a primer). It is important to note that the esters of acrylic acid but not the acid itself sensitize patients, and sensitization is not caused by the uncured gel or the monomer solution but by the remaining monomers in the cured plastic nail and the dust filings that are produced during the finishing process.

Clinical Presentation

Symptoms of an ACD to nail acrylates include pruritus and fingertip dermatitis along with nail plate dystrophy. There may be pruritus at the nail base, with subsequent dryness, thickening, and onycholysis. The brittle nails may become split, discolored, and develop paronychia. Inadvertent contact with glue monomers or other acrylate-containing substances may cause eczematous lesions at distant sites. Avoidance of the allergen often results in complete restoration of the normal nail and fingertip within months.

Sensitization

Acrylates and methacrylates are ubiquitous materials used for both industrial and commercial applications. Due to their widespread industrial use, contact allergies to acrylates including 2-HEMA, 2-hydroxypropyl methacrylate, and triethyleneglycol diacrylate (TREGDA) are common. Cross-reaction of these compounds has been observed and is postulated to be due to reaction of the (meth)acrylate carboxyethyl group with the receptors of antigen-presenting cells.⁵ As a result, an individual with an acrylate allergy sensitized to one allergen often is allergic to its similar compounds and cross-reactors and must avoid the assortment of compounds containing these ingredients, which is important for individuals with occupational sensitization to a particular acrylate who is subsequently susceptible to other acrylate-containing compounds triggering allergic reactions when reexposure occurs in different settings.

Allergens and Occupational Exposure

Acrylates in cosmetic nail products are a source of ACD for not only the customer but also the manicurist.⁶ The most frequently cited sources of ACD in beauticians are acrylate chemicals.⁷ However, acrylate compounds are an occupational hazard for a number of other specialists, including dentists and dental technicians, histology technicians, and individuals in the printing industry.^8,9 Other individuals may be sensitized to acrylates through their inclusion in adhesives, dental bonding agents, hearing aids, electrocardiogram electrodes, artificial bone cement, and a myriad of other medical and nonmedical applications.^4,10-12 For workers who cannot avoid occupational exposure to these allergens, polyvinyl alcohol and multilayer laminate gloves are recommended, as natural rubber latex gloves do not always provide adequate protection from many of these agents.¹⁰

Testing for Suspected Acrylate Allergy

Cross-reactivity among acrylates is widely considered in the literature but remains enigmatic and is an important consideration with regard to routine patch test screening.¹³ In the case of an acrylate allergy to nail products, using 2-HEMA and ethylene glycol dimethacrylate is effective in detecting sensitization by photobonded nails and in patients sensitized by powder liquid products.¹⁴ One study showed a patch test panel including 2-HEMA, ethylene glycol dimethacrylate, and TREGDA was effective in identifying the majority of individuals with an allergy to acrylates in nail products and nail technicians.¹⁵ Another study has shown the most commonly positive testing allergens to be HEMA, ethyl acrylate, and methyl methacrylate.¹⁶ If one is patch testing only one chemical, it appears 2-HEMA is preferred.¹⁷ However, broader panels of screening allergens are necessary to achieve an accurate diagnosis. Furthermore, different panels of test allergens have been shown to vary in their ability to detect an acrylate allergy in different occupational exposures.¹² 

The time to patch test read also is important. A standard read at 72 hours is warranted; however, one study showed if only one read at day 3 was done without a subsequent day 7 read, then 25% of TREGDA and 50% of 2-HEMA allergies would have been missed in patients with occupational acrylate allergy.¹⁵ Other studies have reported late-appearing and long-lasting test reactions when testing for an acrylate allergy.^18,19 Clinicians should be cognizant that an acrylate allergy may be present even if initial screening is negative but the history and clinical picture are suggestive.