Cory A. Dunnick

The Dellavalle/Dunnick Dermato-Epidemiology Lab transitioned from a single campus to a dual-campus collaboration between the University of Colorado and the University of Minnesota in 2024. Since the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, the laboratory has been operating on Zoom and allows medical students from any institution to join. This innovative laboratory structure offers students and other researchers unique opportunities to engage in dermatological research and develop professional networks across two large academic institutions. The laboratory’s model embraces a virtual collaborative approach, promotes inclusivity, encourages student-led inquiry, and provides a structured environment for professional development and academic output. Through its commitment to diverse student perspectives and interdisciplinary cooperation, the Dellavalle/Dunnick Dermato-Epidemiology Lab creates a new, equitable, nationwide model for research and mentorship in dermatology, supporting medical students, residents, and fellows to navigate future careers in dermatology.

BACKGROUND Within dermatology, grand rounds serve as a foundational platform for continuing medical education (CME) and clinical development, yet little is known about how these sessions vary across U.S. academic institutions. OBJECTIVE This study aims to address the lack of comprehensive data on regional variation in CME offerings by conducting a comparative analysis of ACCME-accredited dermatology grand rounds at U.S. allopathic medical schools METHODS A cross-sectional survey was distributed to 112 dermatology departments affiliated with allopathic medical schools to assess regional differences in the structure of ACCME-accredited grand rounds, including frequency, delivery format, attendance, and CME credit allocation. Departments were eligible if they (1) internally hosted grand rounds and (2) offered ACCME-accredited AMA PRA Category 1 Credit™. Only departments meeting both criteria completed the full survey. RESULTS Of the 57 programs that responded, 52 (91.2%) host grand rounds, with 44 (84.6%) offering CME credits. Results revealed notable regional variation: the Northeast hosted fewer, higher-credit in-person sessions, while the West favored frequent, lower-credit hybrid or virtual formats. Nationally, higher CME credit was associated with greater attendance, but this trend was not consistent across the regions. CONCLUSIONS The observed variation reflects how institutional priorities, resources, and logistical considerations shape educational offerings. Understanding these dynamics may guide departments in optimizing their CME strategies moving forward.

Background: Seborrheic dermatitis (SD) affects 18.6%-59% of persons with Parkinson disease (PD), and recent studies provide evidence that oral cannabidiol (CBD) therapy could reduce sebum production in addition to improving motor and psychiatric symptoms in PD. Therefore, oral CBD could be useful for improving symptoms of both commonly co-occurring conditions. Objective: This study investigates whether oral CBD therapy is associated with a decrease in SD severity in PD. Methods: Facial photographs were collected as a component of a randomized (1:1 CBD vs placebo), parallel, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial assessing the efficacy of a short-term 2.5 mg per kg per day oral sesame solution CBD-rich cannabis extract (formulated to 100 mg/mL CBD and 3.3 mg/mL THC) for reducing motor symptoms in PD. Participants took 1.25 mg per kg per day each morning for 4 ±1 days and then twice daily for 10 ±4 days. Reviewers analyzed the photographs independently and provided a severity ranking based on the Seborrheic Dermatitis Area and Severity Index (SEDASI) scale. Baseline demographic and disease characteristics, as well as posttreatment SEDASI averages and the presence of SD, were analyzed with 2-tailed t tests and Pearson χ2 tests. SEDASI was analyzed with longitudinal regression, and SD was analyzed with generalized estimating equations. Results: A total of 27 participants received a placebo and 26 received CBD for 16 days. SD severity was low in both groups at baseline, and there was no treatment effect. The risk ratio for patients receiving CBD, post versus pre, was 0.69 (95% CI 0.41-1.18; P=.15), compared to 1.20 (95% CI 0.88-1.65; P=.26) for the patients receiving the placebo. The within-group pre-post change was not statistically significant for either group, but they differed from each other (P=.07) because there was an estimated improvement for the CBD group and an estimated worsening for the placebo group. Conclusions: This study does not provide solid evidence that oral CBD therapy reduces the presence of SD among patients with PD. While this study was sufficiently powered to detect the primary outcome (efficacy of CBD on PD motor symptoms), it was underpowered for the secondary outcomes of detecting changes in the presence and severity of SD. Multiple mechanisms exist through which CBD can exert beneficial effects on SD pathogenesis. Larger studies, including participants with increased disease severity and longer treatment periods, may better elucidate treatment effects and are needed to determine CBD’s true efficacy for affecting SD severity. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03582137; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03582137

Accurate assessment of gender identity and biological sex in dermatology research is crucial since their conflation or poor demarcation undermines patient respect and study accuracy. Clearer guidance is needed for health care researchers, particularly in light of the notable disparities in skin disease rates, skincare practices, literature representation, and the persistent underrepresentation of transgender and nonbinary patients.

BACKGROUND Seborrheic dermatitis (SD) affects 18.6%-59% of persons with Parkinson disease (PD), and recent studies provide evidence that oral cannabidiol (CBD) therapy could reduce sebum production in addition to improving motor and psychiatric symptoms in PD. Therefore, oral CBD could be useful for improving symptoms of both commonly co-occurring conditions. OBJECTIVE This study investigates whether oral CBD therapy is associated with a decrease in SD severity in PD. METHODS Facial photographs were collected as a component of a randomized (1:1 CBD vs placebo), parallel, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial assessing the efficacy of a short-term 2.5 mg per kg per day oral sesame solution CBD-rich cannabis extract (formulated to 100 mg/mL CBD and 3.3 mg/mL THC) for reducing motor symptoms in PD. Participants took 1.25 mg per kg per day each morning for 4 ±1 days and then twice daily for 10 ±4 days. Reviewers analyzed the photographs independently and provided a severity ranking based on the Seborrheic Dermatitis Area and Severity Index (SEDASI) scale. Baseline demographic and disease characteristics, as well as posttreatment SEDASI averages and the presence of SD, were analyzed with 2-tailed t tests and Pearson χ2 tests. SEDASI was analyzed with longitudinal regression, and SD was analyzed with generalized estimating equations. RESULTS A total of 27 participants received a placebo and 26 received CBD for 16 days. SD severity was low in both groups at baseline, and there was no treatment effect. The risk ratio for patients receiving CBD, post versus pre, was 0.69 (95% CI 0.41-1.18; P=.15), compared to 1.20 (95% CI 0.88-1.65; P=.26) for the patients receiving the placebo. The within-group pre-post change was not statistically significant for either group, but they differed from each other (P=.07) because there was an estimated improvement for the CBD group and an estimated worsening for the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS This study does not provide solid evidence that oral CBD therapy reduces the presence of SD among patients with PD. While this study was sufficiently powered to detect the primary outcome (efficacy of CBD on PD motor symptoms), it was underpowered for the secondary outcomes of detecting changes in the presence and severity of SD. Multiple mechanisms exist through which CBD can exert beneficial effects on SD pathogenesis. Larger studies, including participants with increased disease severity and longer treatment periods, may better elucidate treatment effects and are needed to determine CBD’s true efficacy for affecting SD severity. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03582137; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03582137

UNSTRUCTURED Accurate assessment of gender identity and biological sex in dermatology research is crucial since their conflation or poor demarcation undermines patient respect and study accuracy. Clearer guidance is needed for health care researchers, particularly in light of the notable disparities in skin disease rates, skincare practices, literature representation, and the persistent underrepresentation of transgender and nonbinary patients.

Background: Clinical trials have led to the development of new and effective therapies for many dermatologic conditions. To our knowledge, there is no published study that has quantified and described the degree of involvement in clinical trials among academic dermatologists and their university affiliates. Objective: The purpose of this study was to characterize the involvement of academic dermatology departments in clinical trials research. Methods: An online survey was sent to 211 Veterans Affairs (VA)–employed dermatologists. It comprised 20 questions related to the number of clinical trials, support staff dedicated to clinical research, skin diseases studied, and the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on conducting clinical research. Three rounds of survey invitations were sent over a 3-month period (March to May 2021). Data from all survey responses were reviewed for quantitative and descriptive analyses of the key outcome measures. Results: A total of 48 dermatologists completed the survey and provided their university affiliations and details of involvement in clinical trials research. Over half of participants (n=25, 58.1%) with a university affiliate reported that their affiliated dermatology department had a dedicated clinical trials unit. Basal cell carcinoma was the most frequently studied skin condition (n=9, 18.8%), followed by atopic dermatitis and psoriasis (n=4, 8.3% each); 66.7% of participants reported no current clinical trials participation. Of those conducting clinical trials, 87% (n=18) noted that COVID-19 was a barrier to conducting trials, with 52.2% (n=11) citing disrupted or decreased trials due to the pandemic. Conclusions: Although many dermatologists with university affiliations reported having a dedicated clinical trials unit at their institution, a majority of those surveyed reported not taking part in any active trials. Overall, the diseases investigated in academic clinical trials appear to follow national trends, though some of the top dermatological diseases are underrepresented in clinical trials research. A key limitation of our study was the low response rate (~23%) and that the survey responses from the sample of VA-based dermatologists may not be generalizable to all academic dermatology departments in the United States. The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic appeared to play a significant role in disrupting active trials.