Pharmacological Agents Used in the Prevention and Treatment of Actinic Keratosis: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Actinic keratosis (AK) is among the most commonly diagnosed skin diseases with potentially life-threatening repercussions if left untreated. Usage of pharmacologic agents represents one of many therapeutic strategies that can be used to help manage these lesions. Ongoing research into these compounds continues to change our clinical understanding as to which agents most benefit particular patient populations. Indeed, factors such as past personal medical history, lesion location and tolerability of therapy only represent a few considerations that clinicians must account for when prescribing appropriate treatment. This review focuses on specific drugs used in either the prevention or treatment of AKs. Nicotinamide, acitretin and topical 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) continue to be used with fidelity in the chemoprevention of actinic keratosis, although some uncertainty persists in regard to which agents should be used in immunocompetent vs. immunodeficient/immunosuppressed patients. Topical 5-FU, including combination formulations with either calcipotriol or salicylic acid, as well as imiquimod, diclofenac and photodynamic light therapy are all accepted treatment strategies employed to target and eliminate AKs. Five percent of 5-FU is regarded as the most effective therapy in the condition, although the literature has conflictingly shown that lower concentrations of the drug might also be as effective. Topical diclofenac (3%) appears to be less efficacious than 5% 5-FU, 3.75-5% imiquimod and photodynamic light therapy despite its favorable side effect profile. Finally, traditional photodynamic light therapy, while painful, appears to be of higher efficacy in comparison to its more tolerable counterpart, daylight phototherapy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".