Search

We describe a particularly severe case of drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome with hemodynamic instability, erythroderma, profound eosinophilia, and severe organ dysfunction. We attribute the severity in part to a delay in diagnosis due to patient's skin of color, as the erythroderma was not noticed until a dermatologist was consulted. This case highlights how even severe skin disease can present less conspicuously in patients with darker skin types. We outline several strategies that can help clinicians to recognize DRESS and other skin disease phenotypes in patients of color, thereby avoiding delays in diagnosis as seen in this case.

BackgroundHidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is associated with comorbidities that contribute to poor health, impaired life quality, and mortality risk.ObjectiveTo provide evidence-based screening recommendations for comorbidities linked to HS.MethodsSystematic reviews were performed to summarize evidence on the prevalence and incidence of 30 comorbidities in patients with HS relative to the general population. The screening recommendation for each comorbidity was informed by the consistency and quality of existing studies, disease prevalence, and magnitude of association, as well as benefits, harms, and feasibility of screening. The level of evidence and strength of corresponding screening recommendation were graded by using the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) criteria.ResultsScreening is recommended for the following comorbidities: acne, dissecting cellulitis of the scalp, pilonidal disease, pyoderma gangrenosum, depression, generalized anxiety disorder, suicide, smoking, substance use disorder, polycystic ovary syndrome, obesity, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, inflammatory bowel disease, spondyloarthritis, and sexual dysfunction. It is also recommended to screen patients with Down syndrome for HS. The decision to screen for specific comorbidities may vary with patient risk factors. The role of the dermatologist in screening varies according to comorbidity.LimitationsScreening recommendations represent one component of a comprehensive care strategy.ConclusionsDermatologists should support screening efforts to identify comorbid conditions in HS.

BackgroundHidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is associated with comorbidities that contribute to poor health, impaired life quality, and mortality risk.ObjectiveTo provide evidence-based screening recommendations for comorbidities linked to HS.MethodsSystematic reviews were performed to summarize evidence on the prevalence and incidence of 30 comorbidities in patients with HS relative to the general population. The screening recommendation for each comorbidity was informed by the consistency and quality of existing studies, disease prevalence, and magnitude of association, as well as benefits, harms, and feasibility of screening. The level of evidence and strength of corresponding screening recommendation were graded by using the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) criteria.ResultsScreening is recommended for the following comorbidities: acne, dissecting cellulitis of the scalp, pilonidal disease, pyoderma gangrenosum, depression, generalized anxiety disorder, suicide, smoking, substance use disorder, polycystic ovary syndrome, obesity, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, inflammatory bowel disease, spondyloarthritis, and sexual dysfunction. It is also recommended to screen patients with Down syndrome for HS. The decision to screen for specific comorbidities may vary with patient risk factors. The role of the dermatologist in screening varies according to comorbidity.LimitationsScreening recommendations represent one component of a comprehensive care strategy.ConclusionsDermatologists should support screening efforts to identify comorbid conditions in HS.

Background: Nearly half of patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) report dissatisfaction with their treatment. However, factors related to treatment satisfaction have not been explored. Objectives: To measure associations between treatment satisfaction and clinical and treatment-related characteristics among patients with HS. Methods: Treatment satisfaction was evaluated utilizing data from a cross-sectional global survey of patients with HS recruited from 27 institutions, mainly HS referral centres, in 14 different countries from October 2017 to July 2018. The primary outcome was patients’ self-reported overall satisfaction with their current treatments for HS, rated on a five-point scale from ‘very dissatisfied’ to ‘very satisfied’. Results: The final analysis cohort comprised 1418 patients with HS, most of whom were European (55%, 780 of 1418) or North American (38%, 542 of 1418), and female (85%, 1210 of 1418). Overall, 45% (640 of 1418) of participants were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with their current medical treatment. In adjusted analysis, patients primarily treated by a dermatologist for HS had 1·99 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1·62–2·44, P < 0·001] times the odds of being satisfied with current treatment than participants not primarily treated by a dermatologist. Treatment with biologics was associated with higher satisfaction [odds ratio (OR) 2·36, 95% CI 1·74–3·19, P < 0·001] relative to treatment with nonbiologic systemic medications. Factors associated with lower treatment satisfaction included smoking (OR 0·78, 95% CI 0·62–0·99; active vs. never), depression (OR 0·69, 95% CI 0·54–0·87), increasing number of comorbidities (OR 0·88 per comorbidity, 95% CI 0·81–0·96) and increasing flare frequency. Conclusions: There are several factors that appear to positively influence satisfaction with treatment among patients with HS, including treatment by a dermatologist and treatment with a biologic medication. Factors that appear to

The 2nd Annual Symposium on Hidradenitis Suppurativa Advances (SHSA) took place on 03-05 November 2017 in Detroit, Michigan, USA. This symposium was a joint meeting of the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation (HSF Inc.) founded in the USA, and the Canadian Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation (CHSF). This was the second annual meeting of the SHSA with experts from different disciplines arriving from North America, Europe and Australia, in a joint aim to discuss most recent innovations, practical challenges and potential solutions to issues related in the management and care of Hidradenitis Suppurativa patients. The last session involved clinicians, patients and their families in an effort to educate them more about the disease.

Hidradenitis suppurativa is a severe and debilitating dermatologic disease. Clinical management is challenging and consists of both medical and surgical approaches, which must often be combined for best outcomes. Therapeutic approaches have evolved rapidly in the last decade and include the use of topical therapies, systemic antibiotics, hormonal therapies, and a wide range of immunomodulating medications. An evidence-based guideline is presented to support health care practitioners as they select optimal medical management strategies and is reviewed in this second part of the management guidelines. A therapeutic algorithm informed by the evidence available at the time of the review is provided.

Hidradenitis suppurativa is a chronic inflammatory disorder affecting hair follicles, with profoundly negative impact on patient quality of life. Evidence informing ideal evaluation and management of patients with hidradenitis suppurativa is still sparse in many areas, but it has grown substantially in the last decade. Part I of this evidence-based guideline is presented to support health care practitioners as they select optimal management strategies, including diagnostic testing, comorbidity screening, and both complementary and procedural treatment options. Recommendations and evidence grading based on the evidence available at the time of the review are provided.

Background: Lengthy wait times for dermatology appointments in the U.S. limit care access. The University of Pennsylvania's Department of Dermatology has established an urgent care clinic (UCC) and an intermediate care clinic (ICC) to expedite appointments for higher acuity patients.Objective: To describe our rapid access clinics' operations, referral patterns, and distributions of diagnoses. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of dermatology consult order and appointment data for UCC, ICC, and routine care to determine the number of orders, consult appointments, and follow-up appointments; appointment wait times; and frequencies of diagnoses in referring provider and consult appointments. Press Ganey patient satisfaction ratings were also analyzed.Results: The median (interquartile range) wait times for UCC, ICC, and routine care, appointments were 3 (1-8) days, 36 (15-64) days, and 45 (12-97) days, respectively (P<0.001). The proportion of referrals originating from subspecialists varied among UCC (47.6%), ICC (20.2%) and routine care (15.8%), (P<0.001). Distributions of diagnoses differed among UCC, ICC, and routine care. Ratings for most satisfaction metrics were similar across clinic settings.Conclusions: Dermatology rapid access clinics within an academic medical center can reduce wait times for higher acuity patients while maintaining patient satisfaction.

Background: Lengthy wait times for dermatology appointments in the U.S. limit care access. The University of Pennsylvania's Department of Dermatology has established an urgent care clinic (UCC) and an intermediate care clinic (ICC) to expedite appointments for higher acuity patients.Objective: To describe our rapid access clinics' operations, referral patterns, and distributions of diagnoses. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of dermatology consult order and appointment data for UCC, ICC, and routine care to determine the number of orders, consult appointments, and follow-up appointments; appointment wait times; and frequencies of diagnoses in referring provider and consult appointments. Press Ganey patient satisfaction ratings were also analyzed.Results: The median (interquartile range) wait times for UCC, ICC, and routine care, appointments were 3 (1-8) days, 36 (15-64) days, and 45 (12-97) days, respectively (P<0.001). The proportion of referrals originating from subspecialists varied among UCC (47.6%), ICC (20.2%) and routine care (15.8%), (P<0.001). Distributions of diagnoses differed among UCC, ICC, and routine care. Ratings for most satisfaction metrics were similar across clinic settings.Conclusions: Dermatology rapid access clinics within an academic medical center can reduce wait times for higher acuity patients while maintaining patient satisfaction.

Background: Lengthy wait times for dermatology appointments in the U.S. limit care access. The University of Pennsylvania's Department of Dermatology has established an urgent care clinic (UCC) and an intermediate care clinic (ICC) to expedite appointments for higher acuity patients.Objective: To describe our rapid access clinics' operations, referral patterns, and distributions of diagnoses. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of dermatology consult order and appointment data for UCC, ICC, and routine care to determine the number of orders, consult appointments, and follow-up appointments; appointment wait times; and frequencies of diagnoses in referring provider and consult appointments. Press Ganey patient satisfaction ratings were also analyzed.Results: The median (interquartile range) wait times for UCC, ICC, and routine care, appointments were 3 (1-8) days, 36 (15-64) days, and 45 (12-97) days, respectively (P<0.001). The proportion of referrals originating from subspecialists varied among UCC (47.6%), ICC (20.2%) and routine care (15.8%), (P<0.001). Distributions of diagnoses differed among UCC, ICC, and routine care. Ratings for most satisfaction metrics were similar across clinic settings.Conclusions: Dermatology rapid access clinics within an academic medical center can reduce wait times for higher acuity patients while maintaining patient satisfaction.

Importance: Toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) and Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (SJS) are rare, acute, life-threatening dermatologic disorders involving the skin and mucous membranes. Research into these conditions is hampered by a lack of standardization of case reporting and data collection. Objective: To establish a standardized case report form to facilitate comparisons and maintain data quality based on an international panel of SJS/TEN experts who performed a Delphi consensus-building exercise. Evidence Review: The elements presented for committee scrutiny were adapted from previous case report forms and from PubMed literature searches of highly cited manuscripts pertaining to SJS/TEN. The expert opinions and experience of the members of the consensus group were included in the discussion. Findings: Overall, 21 out of 29 experts who were invited to participate in the online Delphi exercise agreed to participate. Surveys at each stage were administered via an online survery software tool. For the first 2 Delphi rounds, results were analyzed using the Interpercentile Range Adjusted for Symmetry method and statements that passed consensus formulated a new case report form. For the third Delphi round, the case report form was presented to the committee, who agreed that it was "appropriate and useful" for documenting cases of SJS/TEN, making it more reliable and valuable for future research endeavors. Conclusions and Relevance: With the consensus of international experts, a case report form for SJS/TEN has been created to help standardize the collection of patient information in future studies and the documentation of individual cases.