From failed SPF claims and a sweeping TGA crackdown to landmark trials and political battles over access to care, Dermatology Republic readers dove deep into the stories shaping 2025.
In 2025, Dermatology Republic brought you more than 200 stories covering everything from industry news and politics to new drugs and the latest in dermatology research.
As we looked back at some of the most widely read stories it became clear that DR readers have a strong appetite for a variety of topics.
The top story for the year continues to be a hot topic. It was the story that revealed the Therapeutic Goods Administration had launched an investigation off the back of CHOICE findings about sunscreens.
In June the consumer advocacy group published results of its testing of 20 sunscreens that found only four products lived up to their claims of SPF ratings.
Using 10 adult volunteers and a calibrated “solar simulator”, CHOICE applied incremental doses of light to both protected and unprotected skin, compared the pair as well as a control sunscreen with a known sun protection factor (SPF).
“Of the 20 sunscreens we tested, only four managed to match their SPF claims. Sixteen of the 20 sunscreens we tested failed,” said CHOICE.
“Those failures ranged from a claimed SPF 50+ that actually tested at an SPF of just four, all the way through to results in the 20s, 30s and 40s.”
The TGA announced that it would be investigating the findings.
“[We] will take regulatory action as required,” said the TGA announcement.
So far that regulatory action has resulted in the recall of more than 20 sunscreens from the Australian market and as the year wraps up the investigation continues.
The double-blind randomised controlled trials found that the formulation, known as DFD-29, was more successful at reducing inflammatory lesions compared to both doxycycline and placebo. It included 10mg immediate-release and 30mg extended-release minocycline.
West Australian dermatologist Clinical Associate Professor Kurt Gebauer OAM, who was not involved in the studies, said the findings supported the idea that lower doses can be effective, while also being better, safer, simpler, easier and cheaper.
Dermatologist Professor Rod Sinclair, professor of medicine at the University of Melbourne, and editor of Dermatology Republic, also welcomed the positive findings.
“We might start to see this drug emerging as an approved treatment in a number of countries,” he said.
Professor Sinclair said that while it was reassuring to see no significant side effects, “it took many years to identify some of those rare side effects that made minocycline unpopular”. These included drug-induced lupus or hepatotoxicity.
Professor Sinclair was involved in another study that caught the attention of many DR readers in 2025 – this one about the role of high-dose minoxidil in reversing hair follicle miniaturisation and increasing follicle diameter.
The findings ran counter to early literature suggesting minoxidil didn’t help miniaturisation.
“That meant that the maximum efficacy was [thought to be] achieved at about six to 12 months, and thereafter, patients didn’t get any continued improvement,” said Professor Sinclair.
“Which meant that as soon as you stopped it, you were back to square one with no benefit for the time that you’ve been on it.”
But a study by Professor Sinclair and colleagues on 33 patients with male androgenetic alopecia suggested otherwise.
“Now, what we shown is that it can reverse the miniaturisation and it can lead to an increase in fibre diameter, but it only does so at doses higher than what you would achieve with Regaine,” he said.
Melanoma was a popular topic this year, particularly a story by Lincoln Tracy that looked at a new Australian trial on 3D total body photography with sequential digital dermatology imaging in high-risk melanoma patients.
The trial reported that the procedure resulted in lower rates of melanoma detection and was more expensive than usual care.
Researchers at the University of Queensland randomised over 300 patients at high risk of developing melanoma to receive either four sessions of 3D total body photography with sequential digital dermatology imaging using the VECTRA WB360 or usual care (including regular skin checks) over a two-year period to determine whether the use of total body photography imaging improved the early detection and cost-effectiveness of melanoma and other skin cancers.
Despite the findings, Associate Professor Linda Martin, head of dermatology at the Melanoma Institute Australia, said there was still a potential role for total body photography in melanoma detection, citing other studies that report the addition of photography increases rates of diagnosis and reduces unnecessary biopsy, but emphasised that the research and implementation needs to be done in a more patient-centric way that aligns what happens in the clinic.
Professor Martin also felt that using AI to support clinician decision making may be beneficial, particularly in the context of supporting junior doctors in identifying which featureless melanomas need to be examined further.
Also on AI and melanoma, a new AI tool developed by an international research consortium led by Monash University was unveiled that is set to transform dermatological diagnostics by enhancing speed and accuracy in identifying melanoma and a wide range of other skin diseases.
PanDerm was one of the first AI models designed to replicate and support real-world dermatological decision-making.
Unlike previous AI tools focused on narrow tasks such as analysing only dermoscopic images, PanDerm simultaneously evaluates multiple imaging modalities, including close-up photos, dermoscopy, pathology slides and total body photography.
PanDerm was trained using over two million images sourced from 11 institutions across multiple countries, encompassing four major types of skin imaging. This multimodal approach allowed the model to mimic how clinicians synthesise different visual cues in practice.
In other well-read news, the TGA issued a reinforced warning about the risk of psychiatric side effects with oral isotretinoin and reminded clinicians to conduct a mental health assessment on every patient before prescribing.
The regulator also warned about the potential sexual health side effects of the acne drug.
Clinicians should “assess patients’ mental health and their family history of mental health conditions before starting isotretinoin”, the TGA said, and should “stop treatment immediately if mood-related changes occur and seek specialist advice if symptoms continue after stopping treatment”.
Also on isotretinoin, the Royal Australian College of General Practice made its move into an area currently limited to dermatologists. In August it lodged an application with the TGA to allow GPs to prescribe oral isotretinoin, in a move it said would improve timely access to care for patients with moderate-to-severe acne and severe or treatment-resistant rosacea.
RACGP Specific Interests Dermatology chair, Dr Tracey Purnell, told Dermatology Republic that patients in her town often faced months-long waits, high out-of-pocket costs or the need to travel for specialist care.
She said delays in treatment could result in higher risks of scarring and other complications, not to mention the damage to the patient’s mental health and self-esteem.
Dr Purnell said she believed that adequately trained and educated GPs were well-placed to prescribe isotretinoin and having that ability would be a “game-changer”.
Meanwhile, in a major shake-up announced in Queensland in April, nurse-led clinics were stopped from purchasing stock of Botox or fillers on behalf of doctors or nurse practitioners who do not physically work there.
The state’s health department decision impacted hundreds of nurse-led cosmetic clinics in the Sunshine State.
Traditionally, medical cosmetic clinics run completely by registered nurses – i.e. with no nurse practitioner or doctor present onsite – have been able to work around S4 medicines rules which prevent non-prescribers from purchasing and storing prescription-only medicines.
Instead, doctors or nurse practitioners working remotely have been able to order prescription-only cosmetic injectables like botulinum toxin and dermal fillers which are then consigned to nurse-led cosmetic clinics.
However in a clarification of the law, Queensland Health confirmed that in the opinion of the Queensland government it was illegal for registered nurses to buy S4 cosmetic injectable medicines, and that only prescribers (i.e. doctors and nurse practitioners) could buy S4 cosmetic injectable medicine to hold as stock at a clinic if they physically worked there and exercised exclusive custody.
Further, registered nurses were only allowed to possess S4 cosmetic injectable medicines for the purpose of administering it.
In more political news, likely to have wider clinical implications for dermatologists, pharma giant Pfizer announced in September it had withdrawn its application to list abrocitinib on the PBS for Australian patients living with severe atopic dermatitis.
This was despite the therapy being recommended for subsidy by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) in late 2024. The withdrawal reignited debate over whether Australia’s Health Technology Assessment (HTA) system adequately balances cost with patient need.
Pfizer cited “unsustainable” pricing and risk-sharing arrangements as the reason for its decision, highlighting concerns about Australia’s HTA framework and its impact on patient access to innovative medicines.
“We understand how important it is for Australian patients living with severe atopic dermatitis to have access to effective treatments,” the spokesperson said.
“Unfortunately, we must share the disappointing news that Cibinqo [the brand name for abrocitinib] will not be included on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS).
“While Cibinqo was recommended by the PBAC in November 2024, Pfizer decided not to proceed with the listing based on our assessment that the expected net price level and the current Risk Share Arrangement (RSA) would make the PBS listing unsustainable for the company.”
Pfizer said that the structure of the current RSA, designed to control government expenditure on high-cost medicines, did not reflect a genuine sharing of financial risk.
“Pfizer’s decision is another example of the systemic challenges in Australia’s medicines access environment, where complex pricing and reimbursement processes and conditions can prevent patients from receiving the treatments the need when they need them,” the spokesperson said.
“Australia must urgently create more flexible, patient-focused reimbursement that balances economic considerations with patient needs.
“Pfizer Australia joins industry, patients and healthcare professionals in calling for reform to Australia’s HTA to ensure patients can access the latest treatments when they need them.”
Rounding out the top 10 DR stories for the year was a clinical feature on the painful and deadly disease bullous pemphigoid (BP).
The chronic subepidermal autoimmune blistering skin disease mostly affects older people from the age of 70 years.
According to an article published Nature Reviews Disease Primers, the number of BP cases has been rising due to an ageing population and better diagnostic techniques – although diagnosis is still tricky.
Co-lead author, Sydney dermatologist Professor Dedee Murrell, head of the Department of Dermatology at St George Hospital and the University of NSW, has had a special interest in BP for many years.
She said many elderly patients – particularly those in nursing homes – could potentially be going undiagnosed as the condition was often mistaken for drug reactions, eczema, hives, unexplained rash and even scabies.
Professor Murrell said one of the biggest challenges to treating the disease currently was that it was limited to supportive care and oral corticosteroids, which were not ideal for frail or elderly patients.
But there is hope. Professor Murrell has been involved in the design and conduct of an international trial into the use of dupilumab to treat BP.
The drug is currently listed on the PBS in Australia for the treatment of patients aged 12 years and above with severe atopic dermatitis who have failed to respond to optimally prescribed topical treatments.
This will be the last Dermatology Republic e-news for 2025. We look forward to seeing you back here in 2026. If you have any story ideas or burning issues you think we should follow up, get in touch with us by email.
Wishing you all a safe, healthy and happy holiday season!
Amanda Sheppeard – editor, Specialist Titles and Clinical Update
amanda@medicalrepublic.com.au
Lincoln Tracy– deputy editor, Specialist Titles and Clinical Update
lincoln@medicalrepublic.com.au
Laura Andronicos – journalist, Specialist Titles and Clinical Update
laura@medicalrepublic.com.au
