ReviewDermatology and therapy2024
The "Personalising Actinic Keratosis Treatment for Immunocompromised Patients" (IM-PAKT) Project: An Expert Panel Opinion.
Review in Dermatology and therapy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Real-World Efficacy of Tirbanibulin in Actinic Keratosis Treatment: Expert Consensus and Clinical Insights.Dermatology practical & conceptual · 2025Review
- A Bibliometric Analysis and Visualization of Research Trends and Hotspots in Actinic Keratosis Based on Web of Science.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2025Review
- Investigation of the Causal Association Between Treg Cells and Actinic Keratosis Through Two-Sample Mendelian Randomization Analysis.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2025Article
- Vascular Characteristics of Treatment-resistant and -responsive Actinic Keratosis Identified with Dynamic Optical Coherence Tomography.Acta dermato-venereologica · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Actinic keratosis (AK) is an intraepithelial condition characterized by the development of scaly, erythematous lesions after repeated exposure to ultraviolet radiation. Significant immunosuppression is a risk factor for the development of AK and subsequent lesion progression to squamous cell carcinoma. Immunocompromised patients (ICPs), particularly organ transplant recipients, often have more advanced or complex AK presentations and an increased risk of skin carcinomas versus non-ICPs with AK, making lesions more difficult to treat and resulting in worse treatment outcomes. The recent "Personalising Actinic Keratosis Treatment" (PAKT) consensus reported that delivering patient-centric care may play a role in supporting better clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction with treatments for chronic dermatologic conditions such as AK, which require repeated cycles of treatment. Additionally, currently published guidance and recommendations were considered by the PAKT panel to be overly broad for managing ICPs with their unique and complex needs. Therefore, the "Personalising Actinic Keratosis Treatment for Immunocompromised Patients" (IM-PAKT) panel was established to build upon general recommendations from the PAKT consensus. The panel identified current gaps in guidance for AK care in ICPs, offered practical care approaches based on typical ICP scenarios, and highlighted the need to adapt AK management to optimize care and improve treatment outcomes in ICPs. In particular, dermatologists should establish collaborative and transparent relationships with patients' multidisciplinary teams to enhance overall care for patients' comorbidities: given their increased risk of progression to malignancy, earlier assessments/interventions and frequent follow-ups are vital.The panel also developed a novel "triage" tool outlining effective treatment follow-up and disease surveillance plans tailored to patients' risk profiles, guided by current clinical presentation and relevant medical history. Additionally, we present the panel's expert opinion on three fictional ICP scenarios to explain their decision-making process for assessing and managing typical ICPs that they may encounter in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.