The “Personalising Actinic Keratosis Treatment for Immunocompromised Patients” (IM-PAKT) Project: An Expert Panel Opinion

Abstract

Actinic keratosis; Immunocompromised host; Organ transplantation

Queratosi actínica; Hoste immunodeprimit; Trasplantament d'òrgans

Queratosis actínica; Huésped inmunodeprimido; Trasplante de órganos

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.

Authors were invited by Galderma who funded the planning and delivery of this project. Medical writing services, provided by Ogilvy Health UK, and the Rapid Service Fee were funded by Galderma.