AAD Annual Meeting 2015

SAN FRANCISCO – Older white men are most at risk to die from skin cancer after organ transplants, especially if they’ve had a heart or lung transplant, according to a review of more than a half million U.S. organ transplants from 1987-2013.

It’s long been known that skin cancer is far more likely after solid organ transplants, but it hasn’t been clear until now who’s most likely to die from the disease.

Overall, there were 985 skin cancer deaths following transplant, or 32 deaths per 100,000 patient-years. For white men over 50 years old with thoracic transplants, however, there were 183 deaths per 100,000 patient-years. In contrast, the age-adjusted death rate from malignant melanoma in the general population is 2.7 per 100,000 patient-years.

Investigator Dr. Sarah Arron, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, explained what to do about the findings in an interview at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

aotto@frontlinemedcom.com

SAN FRANCISCO – Older white men are most at risk to die from skin cancer after organ transplants, especially if they’ve had a heart or lung transplant, according to a review of more than a half million U.S. organ transplants from 1987-2013.

It’s long been known that skin cancer is far more likely after solid organ transplants, but it hasn’t been clear until now who’s most likely to die from the disease.

Overall, there were 985 skin cancer deaths following transplant, or 32 deaths per 100,000 patient-years. For white men over 50 years old with thoracic transplants, however, there were 183 deaths per 100,000 patient-years. In contrast, the age-adjusted death rate from malignant melanoma in the general population is 2.7 per 100,000 patient-years.

Investigator Dr. Sarah Arron, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, explained what to do about the findings in an interview at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

aotto@frontlinemedcom.com

SAN FRANCISCO – Older white men are most at risk to die from skin cancer after organ transplants, especially if they’ve had a heart or lung transplant, according to a review of more than a half million U.S. organ transplants from 1987-2013.

It’s long been known that skin cancer is far more likely after solid organ transplants, but it hasn’t been clear until now who’s most likely to die from the disease.

Overall, there were 985 skin cancer deaths following transplant, or 32 deaths per 100,000 patient-years. For white men over 50 years old with thoracic transplants, however, there were 183 deaths per 100,000 patient-years. In contrast, the age-adjusted death rate from malignant melanoma in the general population is 2.7 per 100,000 patient-years.

Investigator Dr. Sarah Arron, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, explained what to do about the findings in an interview at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

aotto@frontlinemedcom.com

SAN FRANCISCO – Formaldehyde has been named the American Contact Dermatitis Society Contact Allergen of the Year for 2015, Dr. David E. Cohen said in the hot topics session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Formaldehyde has been a factor in contact dermatitis for a long time, and exposure to it is widespread, said Dr. Cohen of New York University.

However, recent studies have reassessed the clinical relevance of formaldehyde allergy, and a patch test concentration of 2.0% has been recommended by the European Environmental Contact Dermatitis Research group, according to a report published in the journal Dermatitis (Dermatitis 2015;26:3-6).

“Without causing any more irritant reactions, the patch test concentration of 2.0% detects twice as many contact allergies and enables the diagnosis of formaldehyde-allergic patients who otherwise would have been missed,” the authors wrote.

hsplete@frontlinemedcom.com

SAN FRANCISCO – Formaldehyde has been named the American Contact Dermatitis Society Contact Allergen of the Year for 2015, Dr. David E. Cohen said in the hot topics session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Formaldehyde has been a factor in contact dermatitis for a long time, and exposure to it is widespread, said Dr. Cohen of New York University.

However, recent studies have reassessed the clinical relevance of formaldehyde allergy, and a patch test concentration of 2.0% has been recommended by the European Environmental Contact Dermatitis Research group, according to a report published in the journal Dermatitis (Dermatitis 2015;26:3-6).

“Without causing any more irritant reactions, the patch test concentration of 2.0% detects twice as many contact allergies and enables the diagnosis of formaldehyde-allergic patients who otherwise would have been missed,” the authors wrote.

hsplete@frontlinemedcom.com

SAN FRANCISCO – Formaldehyde has been named the American Contact Dermatitis Society Contact Allergen of the Year for 2015, Dr. David E. Cohen said in the hot topics session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Formaldehyde has been a factor in contact dermatitis for a long time, and exposure to it is widespread, said Dr. Cohen of New York University.

However, recent studies have reassessed the clinical relevance of formaldehyde allergy, and a patch test concentration of 2.0% has been recommended by the European Environmental Contact Dermatitis Research group, according to a report published in the journal Dermatitis (Dermatitis 2015;26:3-6).

“Without causing any more irritant reactions, the patch test concentration of 2.0% detects twice as many contact allergies and enables the diagnosis of formaldehyde-allergic patients who otherwise would have been missed,” the authors wrote.

hsplete@frontlinemedcom.com

SAN FRANCISCO– Secukinumab met its primary endpoint in a head-to-head trial, achieving 21% more PASI 90 responses than ustekinumab in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, according to interim, week 16 results from the phase IIIb CLEAR trial.

Patients’ responses to the two biologic agents had diverged by four weeks of treatment, when half the secukinumab group had achieved the secondary endpoint of PASI 75, compared with 20.6% of the ustekinumab group (P < .0001), Dr. Diamant Thaci said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“Secukinumab was superior to ustekinumab, even at early time points,” said Dr. Thaci of the Comprehensive Center for Inflammation Medicine at University Medical School Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Germany. “This was very remarkable. Especially remarkable was the early difference for PASI 75.”

The biologic agents also showed similar safety profiles, and secukinumab yielded no new safety signals besides those observed in its pivotal phase III studies. “The most common adverse events were what we have seen in daily practice, including headache, nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, fatigue, and arthralgia,” Dr. Thaci said.

Secukinumab works by binding specifically to the interleukin-17A cytokine, thereby blocking its interaction with its receptor. The 52-week, phase IIIb CLEAR trial, which is underway at 134 sites in 24 countries, is comparing the safety and efficacy of secukinumab and ustekinumab in 679 patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Patients had baseline PASI scores of at least 12 and at least 10% body surface area involvement, no previous exposure to either biologic agent, and inadequate responses to topical treatments or phototherapy. Researchers randomized the patients to either 300 mg secukinumab given subcutaneously at baseline, at weeks one through four, and every four weeks thereafter, or to ustekinumab, dosed according to label.

The study cohorts resembled one another demographically at baseline. At week 16, 79% of patients given secukinumab had achieved a PASI 90 response, compared with 57.6% of the ustekinumab group (P < .0001). Furthermore, 44.3% of the secukinumab arm had achieved the secondary endpoint of completely clear skin (a PASI 100 response), compared with 28.4% of the ustekinumab group (P < .0001), Dr. Thaci reported.

After an average of 110 to 111 days of treatment, infections and infestations developed in 29.3% of the secukinumab group and 25.3% of ustekinumab group. Three percent of each group developed serious but non-fatal adverse events, with no deaths reported to date.

“Secukinumab treatment – even at early time points – has demonstrated superiority to ustekinumab in clearing the skin of subjects with moderate to severe psoriasis, with a comparable safety profile,” Dr. Thaci concluded. “It is very clear that we will be able to show and to observe that his agent is leading to improved quality of life.”

Dr. Thaci reported receiving research support from Dignity Sciences.

SAN FRANCISCO– Secukinumab met its primary endpoint in a head-to-head trial, achieving 21% more PASI 90 responses than ustekinumab in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, according to interim, week 16 results from the phase IIIb CLEAR trial.

Patients’ responses to the two biologic agents had diverged by four weeks of treatment, when half the secukinumab group had achieved the secondary endpoint of PASI 75, compared with 20.6% of the ustekinumab group (P < .0001), Dr. Diamant Thaci said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“Secukinumab was superior to ustekinumab, even at early time points,” said Dr. Thaci of the Comprehensive Center for Inflammation Medicine at University Medical School Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Germany. “This was very remarkable. Especially remarkable was the early difference for PASI 75.”

The biologic agents also showed similar safety profiles, and secukinumab yielded no new safety signals besides those observed in its pivotal phase III studies. “The most common adverse events were what we have seen in daily practice, including headache, nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, fatigue, and arthralgia,” Dr. Thaci said.

Secukinumab works by binding specifically to the interleukin-17A cytokine, thereby blocking its interaction with its receptor. The 52-week, phase IIIb CLEAR trial, which is underway at 134 sites in 24 countries, is comparing the safety and efficacy of secukinumab and ustekinumab in 679 patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Patients had baseline PASI scores of at least 12 and at least 10% body surface area involvement, no previous exposure to either biologic agent, and inadequate responses to topical treatments or phototherapy. Researchers randomized the patients to either 300 mg secukinumab given subcutaneously at baseline, at weeks one through four, and every four weeks thereafter, or to ustekinumab, dosed according to label.

The study cohorts resembled one another demographically at baseline. At week 16, 79% of patients given secukinumab had achieved a PASI 90 response, compared with 57.6% of the ustekinumab group (P < .0001). Furthermore, 44.3% of the secukinumab arm had achieved the secondary endpoint of completely clear skin (a PASI 100 response), compared with 28.4% of the ustekinumab group (P < .0001), Dr. Thaci reported.

After an average of 110 to 111 days of treatment, infections and infestations developed in 29.3% of the secukinumab group and 25.3% of ustekinumab group. Three percent of each group developed serious but non-fatal adverse events, with no deaths reported to date.

“Secukinumab treatment – even at early time points – has demonstrated superiority to ustekinumab in clearing the skin of subjects with moderate to severe psoriasis, with a comparable safety profile,” Dr. Thaci concluded. “It is very clear that we will be able to show and to observe that his agent is leading to improved quality of life.”

Dr. Thaci reported receiving research support from Dignity Sciences.

SAN FRANCISCO– Secukinumab met its primary endpoint in a head-to-head trial, achieving 21% more PASI 90 responses than ustekinumab in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, according to interim, week 16 results from the phase IIIb CLEAR trial.

Patients’ responses to the two biologic agents had diverged by four weeks of treatment, when half the secukinumab group had achieved the secondary endpoint of PASI 75, compared with 20.6% of the ustekinumab group (P < .0001), Dr. Diamant Thaci said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“Secukinumab was superior to ustekinumab, even at early time points,” said Dr. Thaci of the Comprehensive Center for Inflammation Medicine at University Medical School Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Germany. “This was very remarkable. Especially remarkable was the early difference for PASI 75.”

The biologic agents also showed similar safety profiles, and secukinumab yielded no new safety signals besides those observed in its pivotal phase III studies. “The most common adverse events were what we have seen in daily practice, including headache, nasopharyngitis, diarrhea, fatigue, and arthralgia,” Dr. Thaci said.

Secukinumab works by binding specifically to the interleukin-17A cytokine, thereby blocking its interaction with its receptor. The 52-week, phase IIIb CLEAR trial, which is underway at 134 sites in 24 countries, is comparing the safety and efficacy of secukinumab and ustekinumab in 679 patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Patients had baseline PASI scores of at least 12 and at least 10% body surface area involvement, no previous exposure to either biologic agent, and inadequate responses to topical treatments or phototherapy. Researchers randomized the patients to either 300 mg secukinumab given subcutaneously at baseline, at weeks one through four, and every four weeks thereafter, or to ustekinumab, dosed according to label.

The study cohorts resembled one another demographically at baseline. At week 16, 79% of patients given secukinumab had achieved a PASI 90 response, compared with 57.6% of the ustekinumab group (P < .0001). Furthermore, 44.3% of the secukinumab arm had achieved the secondary endpoint of completely clear skin (a PASI 100 response), compared with 28.4% of the ustekinumab group (P < .0001), Dr. Thaci reported.

After an average of 110 to 111 days of treatment, infections and infestations developed in 29.3% of the secukinumab group and 25.3% of ustekinumab group. Three percent of each group developed serious but non-fatal adverse events, with no deaths reported to date.

“Secukinumab treatment – even at early time points – has demonstrated superiority to ustekinumab in clearing the skin of subjects with moderate to severe psoriasis, with a comparable safety profile,” Dr. Thaci concluded. “It is very clear that we will be able to show and to observe that his agent is leading to improved quality of life.”

Dr. Thaci reported receiving research support from Dignity Sciences.

SAN FRANCISCO– Significantly more psoriasis patients who received the investigational biologic agent brodalumab achieved a PASI 100 response compared with those who received ustekinumab, and clinical responses persisted through 52 weeks, according to data from the pivotal phase III AMAGINE-2 trial.

Brodalumab also met its co-primary endpoints (PASI 75 and sPGA 0 or 1) compared with placebo at week 12 when given at doses of either 210 or 140 mg every two weeks, Dr. Mark Lebwohl said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

But patients maintained the best responses at the higher brodalumab dose, Dr. Lebwohl, professor and chair of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, reported. “Nearly 44% of patients in this group had not a dot of psoriasis left,” he said.

The interleukin-17 (IL-17) receptor and cytokine family play a key role  in the pathogenesis of plaque psoriasis. Brodalumab works by binding the IL-17 receptor, thereby blocking binding by the A, F, and A/F IL-17 cytokines. The AMAGINE-2 trial is the last of a trio of phase III studies to assess brodalumab’s safety and efficacy in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, Dr. Lebwohl and his associates noted. The findings are consistent with those from earlier trials, they said.

For the study, the researchers enrolled 1,831 patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, of whom 1,776 completed the 12-week induction phase. During induction, patients received either 210 or 140 mg brodalumab, 45 mg of ustekinumab (or 90 mg if they weighed more than 100 kg), or placebo. At week 12, patients were re-randomized to one of the brodalumab or ustekinumab arms.

Fully 44% of patients who received 210 mg brodalumab achieved total clearance of skin disease, or Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) 100 – twice the proportion of the ustekinumab group (22%; P < .001), Dr. Lebwohl said. The 210-mg brodalumab dose also achieved the highest PASI 75 response rate (86%, compared with 70% for ustekinumab, 67% for 140 mg brodalumab, and 8% for placebo), although the adjusted p-value comparing 210 mg brodalumab and ustekinumab did not reach statistical significance (P = .078), he noted. Finally, 79% of patients who received 210 mg brodalumab and 58% of those who received 140 mg brodalumab achieved clear or almost clear skin at week 12 according to the static Physician Global Assessment (sPGA), compared with only 4% of the placebo group (P < .001), he reported.

Brodalumab’s safety profile during the 12-week induction phase resembled that for previous trials, said Dr. Lebwohl. The most common adverse events were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, and arthralgia. “But the punch line was Candida,” he said. Candidiasis affected 0.6% of patients in the placebo arm, compared with 1.4% for brodalumab-treated patients at week 12. By week 52, about 4% to 6.5% of treated patients had developed Candida infections.

Similarly small proportions of patients across all arms experienced serious side effects (1% to 2.6%) during the placebo-controlled period, noted Dr. Lebwohl. After adjusting for exposure time, rates of adverse events were similar for all groups, he said. “However, due to disparity in patient-years of exposure between treatment groups, we cannot draw conclusions about potential dose effects,” he added.

Dr. Lebwohl reported receiving research support from Amgen, which is developing brodalumab together with AstraZeneca/MedImmune.

SAN FRANCISCO– Significantly more psoriasis patients who received the investigational biologic agent brodalumab achieved a PASI 100 response compared with those who received ustekinumab, and clinical responses persisted through 52 weeks, according to data from the pivotal phase III AMAGINE-2 trial.

Brodalumab also met its co-primary endpoints (PASI 75 and sPGA 0 or 1) compared with placebo at week 12 when given at doses of either 210 or 140 mg every two weeks, Dr. Mark Lebwohl said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

But patients maintained the best responses at the higher brodalumab dose, Dr. Lebwohl, professor and chair of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, reported. “Nearly 44% of patients in this group had not a dot of psoriasis left,” he said.

The interleukin-17 (IL-17) receptor and cytokine family play a key role  in the pathogenesis of plaque psoriasis. Brodalumab works by binding the IL-17 receptor, thereby blocking binding by the A, F, and A/F IL-17 cytokines. The AMAGINE-2 trial is the last of a trio of phase III studies to assess brodalumab’s safety and efficacy in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, Dr. Lebwohl and his associates noted. The findings are consistent with those from earlier trials, they said.

For the study, the researchers enrolled 1,831 patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, of whom 1,776 completed the 12-week induction phase. During induction, patients received either 210 or 140 mg brodalumab, 45 mg of ustekinumab (or 90 mg if they weighed more than 100 kg), or placebo. At week 12, patients were re-randomized to one of the brodalumab or ustekinumab arms.

Fully 44% of patients who received 210 mg brodalumab achieved total clearance of skin disease, or Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) 100 – twice the proportion of the ustekinumab group (22%; P < .001), Dr. Lebwohl said. The 210-mg brodalumab dose also achieved the highest PASI 75 response rate (86%, compared with 70% for ustekinumab, 67% for 140 mg brodalumab, and 8% for placebo), although the adjusted p-value comparing 210 mg brodalumab and ustekinumab did not reach statistical significance (P = .078), he noted. Finally, 79% of patients who received 210 mg brodalumab and 58% of those who received 140 mg brodalumab achieved clear or almost clear skin at week 12 according to the static Physician Global Assessment (sPGA), compared with only 4% of the placebo group (P < .001), he reported.

Brodalumab’s safety profile during the 12-week induction phase resembled that for previous trials, said Dr. Lebwohl. The most common adverse events were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, and arthralgia. “But the punch line was Candida,” he said. Candidiasis affected 0.6% of patients in the placebo arm, compared with 1.4% for brodalumab-treated patients at week 12. By week 52, about 4% to 6.5% of treated patients had developed Candida infections.

Similarly small proportions of patients across all arms experienced serious side effects (1% to 2.6%) during the placebo-controlled period, noted Dr. Lebwohl. After adjusting for exposure time, rates of adverse events were similar for all groups, he said. “However, due to disparity in patient-years of exposure between treatment groups, we cannot draw conclusions about potential dose effects,” he added.

Dr. Lebwohl reported receiving research support from Amgen, which is developing brodalumab together with AstraZeneca/MedImmune.

SAN FRANCISCO– Significantly more psoriasis patients who received the investigational biologic agent brodalumab achieved a PASI 100 response compared with those who received ustekinumab, and clinical responses persisted through 52 weeks, according to data from the pivotal phase III AMAGINE-2 trial.

Brodalumab also met its co-primary endpoints (PASI 75 and sPGA 0 or 1) compared with placebo at week 12 when given at doses of either 210 or 140 mg every two weeks, Dr. Mark Lebwohl said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

But patients maintained the best responses at the higher brodalumab dose, Dr. Lebwohl, professor and chair of dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, reported. “Nearly 44% of patients in this group had not a dot of psoriasis left,” he said.

The interleukin-17 (IL-17) receptor and cytokine family play a key role  in the pathogenesis of plaque psoriasis. Brodalumab works by binding the IL-17 receptor, thereby blocking binding by the A, F, and A/F IL-17 cytokines. The AMAGINE-2 trial is the last of a trio of phase III studies to assess brodalumab’s safety and efficacy in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, Dr. Lebwohl and his associates noted. The findings are consistent with those from earlier trials, they said.

For the study, the researchers enrolled 1,831 patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis, of whom 1,776 completed the 12-week induction phase. During induction, patients received either 210 or 140 mg brodalumab, 45 mg of ustekinumab (or 90 mg if they weighed more than 100 kg), or placebo. At week 12, patients were re-randomized to one of the brodalumab or ustekinumab arms.

Fully 44% of patients who received 210 mg brodalumab achieved total clearance of skin disease, or Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) 100 – twice the proportion of the ustekinumab group (22%; P < .001), Dr. Lebwohl said. The 210-mg brodalumab dose also achieved the highest PASI 75 response rate (86%, compared with 70% for ustekinumab, 67% for 140 mg brodalumab, and 8% for placebo), although the adjusted p-value comparing 210 mg brodalumab and ustekinumab did not reach statistical significance (P = .078), he noted. Finally, 79% of patients who received 210 mg brodalumab and 58% of those who received 140 mg brodalumab achieved clear or almost clear skin at week 12 according to the static Physician Global Assessment (sPGA), compared with only 4% of the placebo group (P < .001), he reported.

Brodalumab’s safety profile during the 12-week induction phase resembled that for previous trials, said Dr. Lebwohl. The most common adverse events were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, and arthralgia. “But the punch line was Candida,” he said. Candidiasis affected 0.6% of patients in the placebo arm, compared with 1.4% for brodalumab-treated patients at week 12. By week 52, about 4% to 6.5% of treated patients had developed Candida infections.

Similarly small proportions of patients across all arms experienced serious side effects (1% to 2.6%) during the placebo-controlled period, noted Dr. Lebwohl. After adjusting for exposure time, rates of adverse events were similar for all groups, he said. “However, due to disparity in patient-years of exposure between treatment groups, we cannot draw conclusions about potential dose effects,” he added.

Dr. Lebwohl reported receiving research support from Amgen, which is developing brodalumab together with AstraZeneca/MedImmune.

SAN FRANCISCO – By some estimates, about two-thirds of people check online reviews before they select a doctor.

That’s not necessarily a bad thing, according to Dr. Jeffrey Benabio, a dermatologist and director of health care transformation at Kaiser Permanente in San Diego.

Reviews can help you identify where you need to tighten up your practice and also can help open a dialogue with your patients. You don’t have to pull your hair out over a bad review either; bad reviews can be handled productively. Dr Benabio explained how in an interview at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

aotto@frontlinemedcom.com

SAN FRANCISCO – By some estimates, about two-thirds of people check online reviews before they select a doctor.

That’s not necessarily a bad thing, according to Dr. Jeffrey Benabio, a dermatologist and director of health care transformation at Kaiser Permanente in San Diego.

Reviews can help you identify where you need to tighten up your practice and also can help open a dialogue with your patients. You don’t have to pull your hair out over a bad review either; bad reviews can be handled productively. Dr Benabio explained how in an interview at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

aotto@frontlinemedcom.com

SAN FRANCISCO – By some estimates, about two-thirds of people check online reviews before they select a doctor.

That’s not necessarily a bad thing, according to Dr. Jeffrey Benabio, a dermatologist and director of health care transformation at Kaiser Permanente in San Diego.

Reviews can help you identify where you need to tighten up your practice and also can help open a dialogue with your patients. You don’t have to pull your hair out over a bad review either; bad reviews can be handled productively. Dr Benabio explained how in an interview at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

aotto@frontlinemedcom.com

This year’s annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology includes a total of five late-breaker sessions scheduled for 10:00 a.m. (F010), 1:00 p.m. (F025), and 3:30 p.m. (F037) on Friday, March 20, and 1:00 p.m. (F056) and 3:30 p.m. (F071) on Saturday, March 21.

Want to be up on the latest technology? The Friday morning Focus Session on e-Dermatology and iDermatology 2.0 (U007) is set to offer advice on managing your reputation online and using cloud and smartphone tools in your practice. The session also includes details on the delivery of dermatologic care using the latest technology-enabled models. Looking for the latest science? Friday’s Nanotechnology session (F030) highlights the role of nanotechnology in the diagnosis and management of skin diseases, as well as the latest information on the use of nanotechnology in consumer dermatologic products. Also on Friday, a new session on Teledermatology (S013) examines teledermatology’s potential in value-based health care, along with issues of reimbursement and medicolegal risk.

Review the complete meeting program here.

This year’s annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology includes a total of five late-breaker sessions scheduled for 10:00 a.m. (F010), 1:00 p.m. (F025), and 3:30 p.m. (F037) on Friday, March 20, and 1:00 p.m. (F056) and 3:30 p.m. (F071) on Saturday, March 21.

Want to be up on the latest technology? The Friday morning Focus Session on e-Dermatology and iDermatology 2.0 (U007) is set to offer advice on managing your reputation online and using cloud and smartphone tools in your practice. The session also includes details on the delivery of dermatologic care using the latest technology-enabled models. Looking for the latest science? Friday’s Nanotechnology session (F030) highlights the role of nanotechnology in the diagnosis and management of skin diseases, as well as the latest information on the use of nanotechnology in consumer dermatologic products. Also on Friday, a new session on Teledermatology (S013) examines teledermatology’s potential in value-based health care, along with issues of reimbursement and medicolegal risk.

Review the complete meeting program here.

This year’s annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology includes a total of five late-breaker sessions scheduled for 10:00 a.m. (F010), 1:00 p.m. (F025), and 3:30 p.m. (F037) on Friday, March 20, and 1:00 p.m. (F056) and 3:30 p.m. (F071) on Saturday, March 21.

Want to be up on the latest technology? The Friday morning Focus Session on e-Dermatology and iDermatology 2.0 (U007) is set to offer advice on managing your reputation online and using cloud and smartphone tools in your practice. The session also includes details on the delivery of dermatologic care using the latest technology-enabled models. Looking for the latest science? Friday’s Nanotechnology session (F030) highlights the role of nanotechnology in the diagnosis and management of skin diseases, as well as the latest information on the use of nanotechnology in consumer dermatologic products. Also on Friday, a new session on Teledermatology (S013) examines teledermatology’s potential in value-based health care, along with issues of reimbursement and medicolegal risk.

Review the complete meeting program here.

Attendees of the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology who are seeking aesthetic dermatology have a range of options this year.

Several aesthetic dermatology sessions address hot topics, such as Aesthetic Male Dermatology: A Practical Approach (U037). This Focus Session is scheduled for Sunday, March 22, at 8:00 a.m. The session includes a review of male facial anatomy, along with strategies for maximizing the effectiveness of current cosmetic techniques in men.

New this year: Hands-on sessions, such as the Dermal Fillers Workshop, is offered in three time slots on Saturday, March 21, at 10:00 a.m., 1:00 p.m., and 3:30 p.m. This small group session is designed for beginner and intermediate levels, and addresses patient assessment, anatomy, and filler selection.

For those who want to observe the experts at work, Saturday afternoon’s Live Session: The State of the Art of Aesthetic Dermatology (C013), a 2:00-5:00 p.m. course, offers experts sharing their tips and pearls for assessing and treating the aging face.

View the AAD meeting program here.

Attendees of the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology who are seeking aesthetic dermatology have a range of options this year.

Several aesthetic dermatology sessions address hot topics, such as Aesthetic Male Dermatology: A Practical Approach (U037). This Focus Session is scheduled for Sunday, March 22, at 8:00 a.m. The session includes a review of male facial anatomy, along with strategies for maximizing the effectiveness of current cosmetic techniques in men.

New this year: Hands-on sessions, such as the Dermal Fillers Workshop, is offered in three time slots on Saturday, March 21, at 10:00 a.m., 1:00 p.m., and 3:30 p.m. This small group session is designed for beginner and intermediate levels, and addresses patient assessment, anatomy, and filler selection.

For those who want to observe the experts at work, Saturday afternoon’s Live Session: The State of the Art of Aesthetic Dermatology (C013), a 2:00-5:00 p.m. course, offers experts sharing their tips and pearls for assessing and treating the aging face.

View the AAD meeting program here.

Attendees of the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology who are seeking aesthetic dermatology have a range of options this year.

Several aesthetic dermatology sessions address hot topics, such as Aesthetic Male Dermatology: A Practical Approach (U037). This Focus Session is scheduled for Sunday, March 22, at 8:00 a.m. The session includes a review of male facial anatomy, along with strategies for maximizing the effectiveness of current cosmetic techniques in men.

New this year: Hands-on sessions, such as the Dermal Fillers Workshop, is offered in three time slots on Saturday, March 21, at 10:00 a.m., 1:00 p.m., and 3:30 p.m. This small group session is designed for beginner and intermediate levels, and addresses patient assessment, anatomy, and filler selection.

For those who want to observe the experts at work, Saturday afternoon’s Live Session: The State of the Art of Aesthetic Dermatology (C013), a 2:00-5:00 p.m. course, offers experts sharing their tips and pearls for assessing and treating the aging face.

View the AAD meeting program here.

How does a busy dermatologist decide which sessions to attend at the American Academy of Dermatology’s annual meeting? Dr. Ronald Rapini of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston has some advice.

The choice of top sessions depends on your background, experience, and what you hope to get out of the meeting, Dr. Rapini said in an interview.

“Some attendees will prefer to go to hear about subjects in their areas of interest, whereas others will purposely go to other things in which they have had no interest in the past, just to be updated,” he said. “I have seen old timer dermatologists attend a basic dermatopathology course, for example, just to update themselves in something they don’t deal with much, even though they may not even read their own slides anymore,” he added.

“Residents in particular can especially benefit from the tactic of attacking subjects that tend to be lacking at their home programs,” Dr. Rapini noted.

Need a place to start? To help navigate the meeting, Dr. Rapini recommends the AAD’s cell phone app, available for download at aad.org.

How does a busy dermatologist decide which sessions to attend at the American Academy of Dermatology’s annual meeting? Dr. Ronald Rapini of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston has some advice.

The choice of top sessions depends on your background, experience, and what you hope to get out of the meeting, Dr. Rapini said in an interview.

“Some attendees will prefer to go to hear about subjects in their areas of interest, whereas others will purposely go to other things in which they have had no interest in the past, just to be updated,” he said. “I have seen old timer dermatologists attend a basic dermatopathology course, for example, just to update themselves in something they don’t deal with much, even though they may not even read their own slides anymore,” he added.

“Residents in particular can especially benefit from the tactic of attacking subjects that tend to be lacking at their home programs,” Dr. Rapini noted.

Need a place to start? To help navigate the meeting, Dr. Rapini recommends the AAD’s cell phone app, available for download at aad.org.

How does a busy dermatologist decide which sessions to attend at the American Academy of Dermatology’s annual meeting? Dr. Ronald Rapini of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston has some advice.

The choice of top sessions depends on your background, experience, and what you hope to get out of the meeting, Dr. Rapini said in an interview.

“Some attendees will prefer to go to hear about subjects in their areas of interest, whereas others will purposely go to other things in which they have had no interest in the past, just to be updated,” he said. “I have seen old timer dermatologists attend a basic dermatopathology course, for example, just to update themselves in something they don’t deal with much, even though they may not even read their own slides anymore,” he added.

“Residents in particular can especially benefit from the tactic of attacking subjects that tend to be lacking at their home programs,” Dr. Rapini noted.

Need a place to start? To help navigate the meeting, Dr. Rapini recommends the AAD’s cell phone app, available for download at aad.org.