Mostaghimi, Arash

Importance Pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) is a rare neutrophilic dermatosis characterized by sterile ulcerative skin lesions. Multiple comorbidities and clinical features have been associated with PG, but no standardized guidelines exist for classifying PG phenotypes. Objective To develop an expert-established classification framework for PG phenotypes to inform treatment guidelines and future research endeavors. Evidence Review In this modified Delphi consensus study that included 23 board-certified dermatologists and Medical Dermatology Society members with expertise in PG, panelists completed 5 rounds of anonymous, iterative online surveys that were administered from December 2023 through July 2025. Before the beginning of the consensus exercise, a literature review was performed by nonvoting researchers to summarize existing data on PG clinical associations and comorbidities. A PubMed search from inception to September 2023 identified observational studies, narrative reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses describing PG clinical associations and comorbidities that were published in English. Experts indicated their agreement with proposed PG phenotypes and disease modifiers with a consensus threshold of 70% or greater. Anonymous comments and aggregated results were presented in each subsequent round. In the final round, a framework of PG phenotypes and disease modifiers was proposed for agreement. Findings Twenty-three board-certified dermatologists and Medical Dermatology Society members with expertise in PG completed 5 rounds of iterative surveys. Consensus was reached on the final set of PG phenotypes and disease modifiers, with 83% of experts in agreement. PG phenotypes were overall classified into 2 major groups: PG with autoinflammatory syndromes and nonsyndromic PG. Nonsyndromic PG included 4 phenotypes: inflammatory bowel disease–associated PG, PG in association with hematologic cancers and blood dyscrasias, drug-induced PG, and other (including idiopathic) PG. Disease modifiers of PG phenotype presentations included involvement of special sites (head/neck, genitals, or peristomal skin) and extracutaneous manifestations. Conclusions and Relevance This expert-established, descriptive framework provides a standardized classification system for distinct PG phenotypes and its modifiers. This nomenclature may inform upcoming clinical guidelines and allow for consistency in reporting epidemiological research and outcomes among patients with PG.

Importance: Dermoscopy is increasingly recognized by skin cancer experts and professional leaders as an essential skill for physicians in dermatology and primary care. A substantial number of patients in both settings also receive care from physician assistants (PAs), who provide additional opportunities to evaluate patients with concerning skin lesions. Earning dermatology-specific credentials from the National Commission on Certification for PAs requires passing a written exam with dermoscopic content, and 77% of practicing PAs (all specialties) believe dermoscopy should be a standard element of their formal education. No published studies have identified precise learning objectives that would represent appropriate foundational proficiency in dermoscopy for PAs. Objective: We sought to identify common diagnoses with distinct dermoscopic features and delineate which of these represent appropriate proficiency expectations for early-career PAs in primary care and dermatology. Design, setting, and participants: A panel of 14 dermoscopists was assembled (8 dermatologists; 6 PAs), reflecting contributors to existing consensus statements on physician dermoscopy proficiency benchmarks, dermatologist-recommended competencies for PAs, and/or standardized test content for dermatology PAs. Panelists completed a modified Delphi consensus process involving electronic surveys and roundtable discussions. Main outcomes and measures: Consensus on which specific dermoscopic diagnoses reflect appropriate foundational proficiency expectations for PAs in both primary care and dermatology. Results: Twelve of 14 panelists (86%) reported using dermoscopy for over 12 years (mean: 15.5 y). All panelists completed 2 iterations of an electronic survey regarding 54 diagnoses, with 39 (72%) reaching a final consensus for inclusion in PA curricula and 15 (28%) being identified as non-priority items for early-career PAs. Panelists recommended 14 conditions for primary care PAs and 25 conditions for dermatology PAs. Conclusions and Relevance: Consensus achieved in this modified Delphi process identified diagnoses that represent pragmatic learning objectives to achieve foundational proficiency in dermoscopy for PAs in both primary care and dermatology. This list of validated objectives provides a consensus-based guide to help educators, supervising physicians, and professional leaders to cultivate specialty-appropriate dermoscopic proficiency among early-career PAs.

Importance Scoring systems for Stevens-Johnson syndrome and epidermal necrolysis (EN) only estimate patient prognosis and are weighted toward comorbidities and systemic features; morphologic terminology for EN lesions is inconsistent. Objectives To establish consensus among expert dermatologists on EN terminology, morphologic progression, and most-affected sites, and to build a framework for developing a skin-directed scoring system for EN. Evidence Review A Delphi consensus using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness criteria was initiated with a core group from the Society of Dermatology Hospitalists to establish agreement on the optimal design for an EN cutaneous scoring instrument, terminology, morphologic traits, and sites of involvement. Findings In round 1, the 54 participating dermatology hospitalists reached consensus on all 49 statements (30 appropriate, 3 inappropriate, 16 uncertain). In round 2, they agreed on another 15 statements (8 appropriate, 7 uncertain). There was consistent agreement on the need for a skin-specific instrument; on the most-often affected skin sites (head and neck, chest, upper back, ocular mucosa, oral mucosa); and that blanching erythema, dusky erythema, targetoid erythema, vesicles/bullae, desquamation, and erosions comprise the morphologic traits of EN and can be consistently differentiated. Conclusions and Relevance This consensus exercise confirmed the need for an EN skin-directed scoring system, nomenclature, and differentiation of specific morphologic traits, and identified the sites most affected. It also established a baseline consensus for a standardized EN instrument with consistent terminology.

Importance Although isotretinoin may rarely be associated with laboratory abnormalities such as hypertriglyceridemia, the optimal approach to laboratory monitoring is uncertain, and there is wide variation in clinical practice. Objective To establish a consensus for isotretinoin laboratory monitoring among a diverse, international cohort of clinical and research experts in acne. Design, Setting, and Participants Using a modified electronic Delphi process, 4 rounds of anonymous electronic surveys were administered from 2021 to 2022. For laboratory tests reaching consensus (≥70% agreement) for inclusion, questions regarding more time-specific monitoring throughout isotretinoin therapy were asked in subsequent rounds. The participants were international board-certified dermatologist acne experts who were selected on a voluntary basis based on involvement in acne-related professional organizations and research. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome measured was whether participants could reach consensus on key isotretinoin laboratory monitoring parameters. Results The 22 participants from 5 continents had a mean (SD) time in practice of 23.7 (11.6) years and represented a variety of practice settings. Throughout the 4-round study, participation rates ranged from 90% to 100%. Consensus was achieved for the following: check alanine aminotransferase within a month prior to initiation (89.5%) and at peak dose (89.5%) but not monthly (76.2%) or after treatment completion (73.7%); check triglycerides within a month prior to initiation (89.5%) and at peak dose (78.9%) but not monthly (84.2%) or after treatment completion (73.7%); do not check complete blood cell count or basic metabolic panel parameters at any point during isotretinoin treatment (all >70%); do not check gamma-glutamyl transferase (78.9%), bilirubin (81.0%), albumin (72.7%), total protein (72.7%), low-density lipoprotein (73.7%), high-density lipoprotein (73.7%), or C-reactive protein (77.3%). Conclusions and Relevance This Delphi study identified a core set of laboratory tests that should be evaluated prior to and during treatment with isotretinoin. These results provide valuable data to guide clinical practice and clinical guideline development to optimize laboratory monitoring in patients treated with isotretinoin.