Back to Authors

Miest, Rachel Y.

0000-0001-6819-6888

Mayo Clinic

Mayo Clinic

Citations 4

Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Laser-Assisted Drug Delivery
Labadie, Jessica G. , Worley, Brandon , Kang, Bianca Y. , Rakita, Uros , Rigali, Sarah , Arndt, Kenneth A., Brauer, Jeremy A., Chandra, Sunandana , Didwania, Aashish , DiGiorgio, Catherine M., Donelan, Mattias, Dover, Jeffrey S. , Geronemus, Roy G. , Goldman, Mitchel P. , Hruza, George J. , Ibrahimi, Omar A. , Kauvar, Arielle N.B. , Kelly, Kristen M. , Krakowski, Andrew C. , Miest, Rachel Y. , Orringer, Jeffrey S. , Ozog, David , Ross, E. Victor , Shumaker, Peter R. , Sobanko, Joseph F. , Suozzi, Kathleen C. , Taylor, Mark B., Teng, Joyce , Uebelhoer, Nathan S., Waibel, Jill , Wanner, Molly, Ratchev, Ina, Poon, Emily , Miller, Corinne H. , Alam, Murad , Miest, Rachel, Kelly, Kristen M , Ibrahim, Sarah A. , Bernstein, Eric F. , Galadari, Hassan , Hædersdal, Merete , Christensen, Rachel E. , Alam, Murad

JAMA Dermatology | August 17, 2022 | Volume: 158 | Issue: 10 | Pages: 1193

10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.3234 Get It

Importance Laser-assisted drug delivery (LADD) is used for various medical and cosmetic applications. However, there is insufficient evidence-based guidance to assist clinicians performing LADD. Objective To develop recommendations for the safe and effective use of LADD. Evidence Review A systematic literature review of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and MEDLINE was conducted in December 2019 to identify publications reporting research on LADD. A multidisciplinary panel was convened to draft recommendations informed by the systematic review; they were refined through 2 rounds of Delphi survey, 2 consensus meetings, and iterative review by all panelists until unanimous consensus was achieved. Findings Of the 48 published studies of ablative fractional LADD that met inclusion criteria, 4 were cosmetic studies; 21, oncologic; and 23, medical (not cosmetic/oncologic), and 6 publications of nonablative fractional LADD were included at the request of the expert panel, producing a total of 54 studies. Thirty-four studies (63.0%) were deemed to have low risk of bias, 17 studies (31.5%) had moderate risk, and 3 (5.5%) had serious risk. The key findings that informed the guidelines developed by the expert panel were as follows: LADD is safe in adults and adolescents (≥12 years) with all Fitzpatrick skin types and in patients with immunosuppression; it is an effective treatment for actinic keratosis, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in situ, actinic cheilitis, hypertrophic scars, and keloids; it is useful for epidermal and dermal analgesia; drug delivery may be increased through the application of heat, pressure, or occlusion, or by using an aqueous drug solution; laser settings should be selected to ensure that channel diameter is greater than the delivered molecule; antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended, except with impaired wound healing; antiviral prophylaxis is recommended when treating the face and genitalia; and antifungal prophylaxis is not recommended. The guideline’s 15 recommendations address 5 areas of LADD use: (I) indications and contraindications; (II) parameters to report; (III) optimization of drug delivery; (IV) safety considerations; and (V) prophylaxis for bacterial, viral, and fungal infections. Conclusions and Relevance This systematic review and Delphi consensus approach culminated in an evidence-based clinical practice guideline for safe and effective use of LADD in a variety of applications. Future research will further improve our understanding of this novel treatment technique.
Vulvar neoplasms in 275 women with genital lichen sclerosus and impact of treatment: a retrospective chart review
Dell, E.A., Miest, Rachel Y. , Lohse, Christine M. , Torgerson, Rochelle R.

Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology | March 10, 2018 | Volume: 32 | Issue: 9 | Pages: No page available

10.1111/jdv.14938 Get It

A mucocutaneous eruption
Miest, Rachel Y. , Wetter, David A. , Drage, Lisa A., Camilleri, Michael , el‐Azhary, Rokea A.

International Journal of Dermatology | October 14, 2014 | Volume: 53 | Issue: 12 | Pages: 1425-1427

10.1111/ijd.12591 Get It

Diagnosis and Prevalence of Lanolin Allergy
Miest, Rachel Y. , Yiannias, James A. , Singh, Nidhi , Miest, Rachel Y N, Chang, Yu‐Hui

Dermatitis® | April 16, 2014 | Volume: 24 | Issue: 3 | Pages: 119-123

10.1097/der.0b013e3182937aa4 Get It

Background Current evaluation of suspected allergic contact dermatitis to lanolin includes patch testing to lanolin alcohol (30% in petrolatum). Using this method, the prevalence of lanolin allergy is low (1.8%–2.5%). Objective The objective of this study was to determine whether patch testing to a single lanolin derivative results in underdiagnosis compared with patch testing to 12 lanolin derivatives. Methods Patients were prospectively patch tested to (1) lanolin alcohol (30% in petrolatum) in our standard allergen series; (2) Amerchol L101 (50% in petrolatum) in our cosmetic series; and (3) 10 lanolin derivatives (using concentrations and vehicles recommended in the literature) in a supplemental series. Results Of 286 patients, the overall prevalence of positive reactions to lanolin in at least 1 of the 3 patch test series was 6.29% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.48%-9.11%) (n = 18). The prevalence rates of lanolin allergy using the standard, cosmetic, and supplemental series were 1.05% (95% CI, 0%–2.23%), 3.85% (95% CI, 1.62%–6.07%), and 3.85% (95% CI, 1.62%–6.07%), respectively. Amerchol L101 was associated with increased reaction rates compared with the standard (odds ratio, 3.81; P = 0.007) and supplemental (odds ratio, 8.85; P < 0.001) series, whereas reaction rates were similar for the standard and supplemental series ( P = 0.78). Conclusions Amerchol L101 and patients’ own products should be added to a standard patch testing allergen series to adequately identify lanolin allergy.