Risks of unregulated use of alpha‐melanocyte‐stimulating hormone analogues: a review

Recently, the unregulated use of untested synthetic alpha‐melanocyte‐stimulating hormone (α‐MSH) analogues, commonly known as melanotan I and II, appears to have increased. These analogues are primarily used for their tan‐stimulating effects. Dermatologists see many patients in their clinic who tan. This review provides an overview of the risks of the unregulated use of these substances. Other topics discussed here include the history and safety of afamelanotide, which is the only α‐MSH analogue that is approved for use in a limited number of medical indications. Although afamelanotide has been thoroughly tested and deemed safe, illegal melanotans are likely risky for several reasons. There are questions regarding the preparation, administration, and dosage of these substances. In addition to these general risks, increasing numbers of case reports indicate that the unregulated use of both melanotan I and II is associated with cutaneous complications, particularly melanocytic changes in existing moles and newly emerging (dysplastic) nevi. Four case reports have described melanomas emerging from existing moles either during or shortly after the use of melanotan. Although conclusive evidence linking these phenomena is lacking, publications have stressed the importance of awareness that melanotan is a part of a ‘tanning culture’ in certain subpopulations. Multiple national health organizations have issued safety warnings regarding the use of melanotan I and II.     

Contributions of dermatologists to COVID‐19 research: A brief systematic review

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) has been declared a pandemic. We conducted a systematic review to reveal the contribution of dermatologists in COVID‐19 research. Two hundred and ninety‐eight articles were included and classified into cutaneous manifestations of COVID‐19, operating experience against COVID‐19, mechanisms and treatment of COVID‐19, disinfection and personal protective equipment (PPE)‐related skin diseases, and other topics. The value of these articles and their impact on clinical impact were discussed and we hope that dermatologists can have a better understanding of these areas from this study.     

Results of a nationwide dermoscopy survey investigating the prevalence, advantages and disadvantages of dermoscopy use among Australian dermatologists

Background/Objectives: The primary objective of this survey was to assess the prevalence of use of dermoscopy by Australian dermatologists. The secondary objective was to understand the perceived advantages and disadvantages of dermoscopy use. Methods: Invitation letters were sent to all 282 Australian dermatologists belonging to the Australasian College of Dermatology in 2008. The survey, investigating prevalence and perceptions of dermoscopy use, was completed either online or on paper. Results: Ninety‐nine of the 283 (35%) dermatologists completed the survey eligibly. A total of 98% of dermatologists reported using dermoscopy and 95% had received formal training. Only 2–3% found it not useful for the diagnosis of pigmented lesions, melanoma or atypical naevi, whereas 12% found it not useful for the diagnosis of non‐pigmented tumours. Eighty‐five percent found it improved diagnosis compared to naked eye examination; and 57% of dermatologists used baseline dermoscopy to follow up changes in lesions, of which 78% used some image capture device. Conclusions: In the sample of Australian dermatologists agreeing to be surveyed, there was a high prevalence rate of dermoscopy use. The factors supporting the use of dermoscopy are explored in this foundational database of dermoscopy use among Australian dermatologists.     

The caseload, assessment and treatment of atopic dermatitis: a survey of Australian dermatologists

In early 1995 we surveyed all 250 practicing Australian members of the Australasian College of Dermatologists by a mail-out questionnaire to determine information, such as the caseload imposed by atopic dermatitis, the severity of cases seen by dermatologists, current treatment and dermatologists' satisfaction with treatment. One hundred and forty-nine responses were received. Fifty per cent of patients with atopic dermatitis seen by dermatologists were younger than 10 years, 18% were 10-16 years, and 52% were older than 16 years. Disease was considered to be severe in 18% of patients, moderate in 41% and mild in 41%. Emollients and topical corticosteroids were the most commonly used treatments but there was wide variation in other treatments used by individual dermatologists. Only 10% of respondents were very satisfied with existing treatments for severe atopic dermatitis; 20% of patients with severe disease were considered as refractory or non-responsive. New therapies such as cyclosporin have the potential to improve existing standards of care.     

Cutaneous manifestations of immunoglobulin G4‐related disease: what dermatologists need to know

In this review, we summarize the recent literature and use case examples to reach diagnostic criteria for the diagnosis of immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4)‐related diseases that may be of relevance to the practicing dermatologist.