Gabrielle Baker’s research while affiliated with University of California, Irvine and other places

Introduction: Cutaneous infections pose ongoing challenges to standard treatments due to resistance and limited efficacy. Photodynamic therapy (PDT) emerges as a promising supplement or an alternative to address complicated cases. In this review, we comprehensively review PDT's safety and efficacy in treating cutaneous infections. Evidence acquisition: A PubMed systematic review with search terms for PDT treatment, hair, skin, and nail infections. Evidence synthesis: There were a total of 43 studies on the use of PDT in cutaneous infections which discussed the treatment of viral (N.=20), bacterial (N.=11), fungal (N.=9), and protozoal (N.=3) infections. There is evidence for using PDT, mostly 5-aminolevulinic acid (5-ALA) and methyl aminolevulinate (MAL), in the treatment of cutaneous infections. Most evidence for viral infections involved treatment with 5-ALA PDT in condyloma acuminatum (CoAc), verruca vulgaris, and molluscum contagiosum. In bacterial infections, 5-ALA and MB PDT have been used to achieve complete remission in refractory Pseudomonas and atypical mycobacteria infections without recurrence. In onychomycosis, MAL PDT achieved a 40.9% cure rate and MB PDT showed a 77.8-100% cure rate with no reports of recurrence. Parasitic infections, such as leishmaniasis have also been successfully treated with both 5-ALA and MAL PDT. Conclusions: PDT is a promising treatment option for cutaneous infections, with growing evidence for its utility in treating cutaneous bacterial, viral, fungal, and parasitic infections, particularly those that fail standard treatments. Side effects were mostly limited to localized pain with good outcomes and low recurrence rates.

Background: The study aimed to compare barriers perceived by medical students and resident physicians identifying as of underrepresented groups in medicine (UIM) and/or as sexual and gender minorities (SGM) to individuals not identifying with these groups, especially for trainees with an interest in dermatology. Methods: Cross-sectional survey of medical students and resident physicians based in the United States from February 2021 to July 2021, with subgroup analysis of trainees with interest in dermatology. Findings: Among trainees interested in dermatology, the most notable barriers for the UIM group were 1) lack of home program in specialty/fellowship of interest (4.71±1.73); 2) lack of connections/networking opportunities (4.14±1.29); 3) lack of opportunity to obtain AOA membership (4.00±1.96); 4) obtaining mentorship (4.00±1.47); and lack of diversity in specialty/fellowship of interest (3.93±1.14). Conclusions and relevance: Increasing focused mentorship programs and fostering environments that embrace diversity are key to reducing perceived barriers for minority candidates. J Drugs Dermatol. 2023;22(12):1210-1215. doi:10.36849/JDD.7528R1.

Background: The path to becoming a physician is challenging, with various barriers influencing medical student and resident physician residency and fellowship training career decisions. Studies comparing perceived obstacles at disparate training levels are limited and given these obstacles are dynamic, studies are frequently needed to evaluate perceived barriers to pursuing residency specialty or fellowship of interest for physician trainees. Objective: To evaluate and compare perceived barriers to obtaining residency specialty or fellowship of choice for medical students and resident physicians, respectively. Methods: A Likert scale survey assessing perceived barriers was administered via the listservs of medical schools and organizations in 2021. Differences in the Likert scale score mean between medical students and resident physicians were measured with student t-tests (2-sided). Results: A total of 404 medical trainees participated (301 medical students and 103 resident physicians). Medical students indicated lack of opportunity to obtain alpha omega alpha membership as the most crucial perceived barrier (mean Likert scale score ± standard deviation, 4.01±1.97), followed by USMLE Step 1 score (3.92±1.89) and lack of home program in specialty/fellowship of interest (3.62±1.85). Similarly, resident physicians implicated the lack of a home program in a specialty/fellowship of interest as the most prominent barrier (3.48±1.78), followed by lack of connections/networking (3.17±1.50) and probability of matching (3.14±1.44). Conclusions: The lack of a home program was an important barrier to pursuing a specialty or fellowship of choice for both medical students and resident physicians, respectively, and may have been heightened during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Drugs Dermatol. 2023;22(11):e17-e20 doi:10.36849/JDD.7005e.

Background: In addition to hair loss, alterations in hair texture can be a worrisome side effect of certain medications yet are seldom reported and poorly characterized. Objective: To systematically analyze the scientific literature to characterize medication-associated hair texture changes. Methods: Relevant primary literature within PubMed and Cochrane was reviewed from 1985-2021 including 31 articles (1 randomized controlled trial with texture changes incidentally noted, 6 cohort, 1 cross-sectional, 23 case studies), comprising 2594 patients. Results: Texture changes were associated primarily with antineoplastic agents (n = 97), antiepileptics (n = 56), retinoids (n = 15), immunomodulators (n = 3), and antiretroviral therapy (n = 1). Average age was 48.4 years old (41.2% female). De novo or exaggerated curling patterns were most commonly reported. Average time to texture change varied from 4.5 months (immunomodulators) to 17 months (antiretrovirals). Prognosis was seldom discussed with reversibility noted across all medication classes (n = 17/21; 3 weeks to 5 years post therapy). Irreversible changes were linked with antiretrovirals, retinoids, and antineoplastics. Limitations: Inability to define true incidence rates, ethnicity, and severity of texture changes due to the nature of available literature. Conclusions: Hair texture changes are potential side effects of antineoplastics, antiepileptics, retinoids, immunomodulators, and antiretroviral therapy. As these can have associated psychosocial impact, awareness among prescribing physicians is important.J Drugs Dermatol. 2022;21(9):989-996 doi:10.36849/JDD.6852.