Search

Copyright of Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Summary: Onychomycosis is a fungal infection of the fingernails and toenails. In Europe, tinea unguium is mainly caused by dermatophytes. The diagnostic workup comprises microscopic examination, culture and/or molecular testing (nail scrapings). Local treatment with antifungal nail polish is recommended for mild or moderate nail infections. In case of moderate to severe onychomycosis, oral treatment is recommended (in the absence of contraindications). Treatment should consist of topical and systemic agents. The aim of this update of the German S1 guideline is to simplify the selection and implementation of appropriate diagnostics and treatment. The guideline was based on current international guidelines and the results of a literature review conducted by the experts of the guideline committee. This multidisciplinary committee consisted of representatives from the German Society of Dermatology (DDG), the German‐Speaking Mycological Society (DMykG), the Association of German Dermatologists (BVDD), the German Society for Hygiene and Microbiology (DGHM), the German Society of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine (DGKJ), the Working Group for Pediatric Dermatology (APD) and the German Society for Pediatric Infectious Diseases (DGPI). The Division of Evidence‐based Medicine (dEBM) provided methodological assistance. The guideline was approved by the participating medical societies following a comprehensive internal and external review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Summary: Background and objective: Dermatophyte infections of the skin and nails are common worldwide and vary between geographical areas and over time. The aim of this study was to determine the epidemiological profile of dermatophytes in Germany with a focus on comparing children with adults. Patients and methods: In this retrospective multicenter study, mycological dermatophyte culture results in the period 01/2014 to 12/2016 were analyzed according to identified pathogen, age and gender of patients, and type of disease. Results: Of 1,136 infections (children: n = 88, adults: n = 1,048), 50.8 % were clinically classified as onychomycosis, followed by tinea pedis (34.6 %), tinea corporis (16.2 %), tinea manus (16.2 %), tinea capitis (2.5 %), and tinea faciei (1.2 %). The most frequent pathogen was Trichophyton (T.) rubrum (78.6 %), followed by T. interdigitale (14.3 %), T. benhamiae (3.2 %), T. mentagrophytes (2.1 %), and Microsporum canis (1.7 %). The fungal spectrum differed particularly in tinea corporis and tinea capitis between children and adults with a more diverse pathogen spectrum in children. Trichophyton tonsurans was rarely identified as cause for tinea corporis (2.7 %) or tinea capitis (3.3 %). Conclusions: Differences in pathogens and frequency of fungal infections between age groups should be considered for optimal selection of the appropriate therapeutic regimen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Summary: Tinea capitis describes a dermatophyte infection of scalp and hair that predominately occurs in children. The diagnostic workup includes microscopic examination, culture and/or molecular tests. Treatment is guided by the specific organism involved and should consist of systemic agents as well as adjuvant topical treatment. The aim of the present update of the interdisciplinary German S1 guidelines is to provide dermatologists, pediatricians and general practitioners with a decision tool for selecting and implementing appropriate diagnostic and therapeutic measures in patients with tinea capitis. The guidelines were developed based on current international guidelines, in particular the 2010 European Society for Pediatric Dermatology guidelines and the 2014 British Association of Dermatologists guidelines, as well as on a review of the literature conducted by the guideline committee. This multidisciplinary committee consists of representatives from the German Society of Dermatology (DDG), the German‐Speaking Mycological Society (DMykG), the German Society for Hygiene and Microbiology (DGHM), the German Society of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine (DGKJ) and the German Society for Pediatric Infectious Diseases (DGPI). The Division of Evidence‐based Medicine (dEBM) provided methodological assistance. The guidelines were approved by the participating medical societies following a comprehensive internal and external review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Zusammenfassung Hintergrund Die Bestimmung von spezifischen IgE-Antikörpern spielt eine zentrale Bedeutung bei der Diagnostik von Bienen- und Wespengiftallergien. In den letzten Jahren wurden die komponentenbasierte Diagnostik (CRD) eingeführt, die die Bestimmung spezifischer IgE-Antikörper gegen die Allergene Api m 1, Ves v 1, Ves v 5 und Pol d 5 sowie kreuzreaktive Kohlenhydratdeterminanten (CCDs) erlaubt. Hierdurch soll vor allem bei Probanden mit Doppelsensibilisierungen die klinische Relevanz der einzelnen Sensibilisierungen besser beurteilt werden können. Probanden und Methodik Die spezifischen IgE-Antikörper-Bestimmungen an 143 Probanden mit Bienen- und/oder Wespengiftallergie erfolgten mit den extraktbasierten ImmunoCAP®-Allergenen i1 und i3 sowie den ImmunoCAP®-Allergenkomponenten i208-211 und o214 (Api m 1, Ves v 1, Ves v 5, Pol d 5, CCD). Bei Doppelsensibilisierten wurde zusätzlich ein Inhibitionstest durchgeführt. An einem Teilkollektiv der Studienpopulation erfolgten sIgE-Bestimmungen gegen Api m 1, Api m 4, Pol d 5 und Ves v 5 mittels Allergiechip (ISAC®, n = 44). Ergebnisse Die Sensitivität von Ves v 5 bei isolierten Wespengiftallergikern betrug 78,5 %, gemeinsam mit Ves v 1 stieg diese auf 92,3 %. Die Sensitivität von Api m 1 bei isolierten Bienengiftallergikern betrug 25 %. Die komponentenbasierte Diagnostik und Inhibitionstests bei Doppelsensibilisierten lieferten divergente Ergebnisse. Die CRD mittels ISAC®-Allergiechip erbrachte deutliche Unterschiede vor allem im Hinblick auf die Diagnostik von Api m 1 und CCDs. Schlussfolgerungen Die CRD bereichert das diagnostische Spektrum, sofern sie nicht allein sondern zusätzlich zu den etablierten Verfahren eingesetzt wird. Sie sollte neben Ves v 5 stets die Bestimmung der IgE-Antikörper gegen Ves v 1 umfassen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The measurement of specific IgE (sIgE) antibodies plays a key role in the diagnosis of honeybee and wasp venom allergy. In recent years, component-resolved diagnosis (CRD) has been introduced, which allows for the measurement of sIgE antibodies against Api m 1, Ves v 1, Ves v 5, and Pol d 5, as well as cross-reactive carbohydrate determinants (CCDs). These tests are intended to help determine the clinical relevance of any given sensitization, especially in patients with dual sensitization. Patients and methods Specific IgE antibody levels were measured in 143 patients with bee and/or wasp venom allergy using the extract-based ImmunoCAP® allergens i1 and i3 as well as the ImmunoCAP® allergen components i208-211 and O214 (Api m 1, Ves v 1, Ves v 5, Pol d 5, CCDs). In patients with dual sensitization, inhibition testing was also performed. In a subgroup of the study population, sIgE to Api m 1, Api m 4, Pol d 5, and Ves v 5 were determined using the ISAC® allergy microarray ( n = 44). Results The sensitivity of Ves v 5 in patients with isolated wasp venom allergy was 78.5 %; in combination with Ves v 1, that figure increased to 92.3 %. The sensitivity of Api m 1 in individuals with isolated bee venom allergy was 25 %. CRD and inhibition testing in individuals with dual sensitization showed divergent results. CRD using the ISAC® allergy microarray showed marked differences, especially with regard to Api m 1 and CCDs. Conclusion Component-resolved tests are a valuable addition to the diagnostic spectrum as long as they are used in combination with established procedures. Apart from Ves v 5, measuring IgE antibodies to Ves v 1 should always be included in the diagnostic workup. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]