Search

Background: Cross‐sectional data on patient burden in adults with atopic dermatitis (AD) from real‐world clinical practice are limited. Objective: This study compared patient‐reported burden associated with adult AD across severity levels from clinical practices in Canada and Europe. Methods: This study included adults (18–65 years) diagnosed with AD by dermatologists, general practitioners or allergists. Participants categorized as mild (n = 547; 37.3%), moderate (n = 520; 35.4%) or severe (n = 400; 27.3%) based on Investigator's Global Assessment completed a questionnaire that included pruritus and pain numerical rating scales, Patient‐Oriented‐Scoring of Atopic Dermatitis (PO‐SCORAD) itch and sleep visual analogue scales, Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Participants were also stratified by inadequate efficacy/intolerance/contraindication to cyclosporine [Cyclo; n = 62 (4 mild, 18 moderate, 40 severe)] and any systemic immunomodulatory agent [IMM; n = 104 (13 mild, 31 moderate, 60 severe)] and compared with the severe group excluding participants identified as Cyclo/IMM. Results: Age was similar across severity groups; the proportion of women was higher in the mild group relative to severe (61.2% vs. 50.5%; P < 0.001). Compared with moderate and mild, participants with severe AD had more comorbidities, higher itch and pain severity, worse sleep and higher levels of anxiety and depression (all P < 0.001). Mean ± SD DLQI score among participants with severe AD (16.2 ± 6.9) showed a large effect on quality of life that was higher than those with moderate (10.2 ± 6.3) and mild (5.5 ± 4.9) (both P < 0.001). The burden among Cyclo and IMM subgroups was generally similar to that of participants with severe AD. Conclusions: Adults with AD reported a substantial burden across multiple domains that was significantly higher in those with severe disease. The burden among participants in the Cyclo/IMM subgroups was similar to those with severe AD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the October 2009 issue of the "Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology," which offers information on the European S3-Guidelines for treating psoriasis vulgaris. It notes that the guidelines are intended for dermatologists and for medical specialists involved treating the disease. The guidelines are also meant to aid the activity of contributing to the fulfilment of a need or purpose to health insurance organizations and political decision-makers.

Background and Objectives: Treatment of severe dermatological autoimmune diseases and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) with high-dose intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) is a well-established procedure in dermatology. As treatment with IVIg is usually considered for rare clinical entities or severe cases, the use of immunoglobulin is not generally based on data from randomized controlled trials usually required for evidence-based medicine. Since the indications for the use of IVIg are rare, it is unlikely that such studies will be available in the foreseeable future. Because first-line use is limited by the high costs of IVIg, the first clinical guidelines on the use of IVIg in dermatological conditions were established in 2008 and renewed in 2011., Methods: The European guidelines presented here were prepared by a panel of experts nominated by the European Dermatology Forum (EDF) and European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV). The guidelines were developed to update the indications for treatment currently considered effective and to summarize the evidence for the use of IVIg in dermatological autoimmune diseases and TEN., Results and Conclusion: The current guidelines represent consensual expert opinions and definitions on the use of IVIg reflecting current published evidence and are intended to serve as a decision-making tool for the use of IVIg in dermatological diseases.

Background: Clinical and pathologic criteria to distinguish drug-induced subacute lupus erythematosus (DI-SCLE) from idiopathic (I-SCLE) are controversial., Objective: The aim of the survey was a retrospective analysis of a consistent number of iatrogenous and idiopathic SCLE cases, by means of clinical and histopathologic investigation., Methods: Eleven European university dermatology units collected all diagnosed cases from January 2000 to December 2016. Board-certified dermatopathologists reviewed the histopathologic specimens. Statistical analysis included Student t test, exact test of goodness-of-fit, Fisher's exact test, and the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test for repeated measures., Results: Out of 232 patients, 67 (29%) belonged to the DI-SCLE group. Patients with DI-SCLE were significantly older and reported more systemic symptoms than those with I-SCLE. No statistical differences were found for presentation pattern or serology, while histopathology showed a significant association of mucin deposition (P = .000083), direct immunofluorescence positivity for granular immunoglobulin M, and C3 deposits on the basement membrane zone (P = .0041) for I-SCLE and of leukocytoclastic vasculitis (P = .0018) for DI-SCLE., Limitations: This is a retrospective study., Conclusion: An integrated clinical and immunopathologic evaluation is useful to differentiate I-SCLE from DI-SCLE. Older age at onset and more frequent systemic symptoms characterize DI-SCLE. Mucin deposition and immunofluorescence findings are found in I-SCLE, and leukocytoclastic vasculitis is found in DI-SCLE., (Copyright © 2019 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Herpes zoster (HZ, shingles) is a frequent medical condition which may severely impact the quality of life of affected patients. Different therapeutic approaches to treat acute HZ are available. The aim of this European project was the elaboration of a consensus-based guideline on the management of patients who present with HZ, considering different patient populations and different localizations. This interdisciplinary guideline aims at an improvement of the outcomes of the acute HZ management concerning disease duration, acute pain and quality of life of the affected patients and at a reduction of the incidence of postherpetic neuralgia and other complications. The guideline development followed a structured and predefined process, considering the quality criteria for guidelines development as suggested by the AGREE II instrument. The steering group was responsible for the planning and the organization of the guideline development process (Division of Evidence based Medicine, dEBM). The expert panel was nominated by virtue of clinical expertise and/or scientific experience and included experts from the fields of dermatology, virology/infectiology, ophthalmology, otolaryngology, neurology and anaesthesiology. Recommendations for clinical practice were formally consented during the consensus conference, explicitly considering different relevant aspects. The guideline was approved by the commissioning societies after an extensive internal and external review process. In this first part of the guideline, diagnostic means have been evaluated. The expert panel formally consented recommendations for the management of patients with (suspected) HZ, referring to the assessment of HZ patients, considering various specific clinical situations. Users of the guideline must carefully check whether the recommendations are appropriate for the context of intended application. In the setting of an international guideline, it is generally important to consider different national approaches and legal circumstances with regard to the regulatory approval, availability and reimbursement of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions., (© 2016 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.)

Background: Available literature on psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) demonstrates a tremendous burden of disease and suggests underdiagnosis and undertreatment., Objective: To obtain real-world physician perspectives on the impact of psoriasis and PsA and its treatment on patients' daily lives, including perceptions of, and satisfaction with, current therapies., Methods: The Multinational Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis (MAPP) surveyed dermatologists (n = 391) and rheumatologists (n = 390) in North America (Canada and the United States) and Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Spain and United Kingdom)., Results: Dermatologists classified 20.3% and 25.7% of their patients as having severe psoriasis and severe PsA respectively; rheumatologists indicated that 48.4% of their PsA patients had active disease. Of the psoriasis patients complaining of joint pain, only 33.0% had a diagnosis of PsA. An impact on daily activities or social/emotional well-being was recognized by 57.2% to 79.3% of physicians. In patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, dermatologists reported 74.9% were receiving topical therapy, 19.5% conventional oral therapy and 19.6% biologics. Dermatologists and rheumatologists reported similar rates of topical (≈45%) and biologic (≈30%) therapy utilization for their PsA patients; conventional oral therapy was more often prescribed by rheumatologists (63.4%) vs. dermatologists (35.2%). Reasons for not initiating or maintaining systemic therapies were related to concerns about long-term safety, tolerability, efficacy and costs (biologics)., Conclusion: Physicians in North America and Europe caring for patients with psoriasis and PsA acknowledge unmet treatment needs, largely concerning long-term safety/tolerability and efficacy of currently available therapies; evidence suggests underdiagnosis of PsA and undertreatment of psoriasis among dermatologists., (© 2015 The Authors. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.)

Background: Available psoriasis surveys offer valuable information about psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), but are limited by methodology or enrollment requirements., Objective: To further the understanding of the unmet needs of psoriasis and PsA patients., Methods: This was a large, multinational, population-based survey of psoriasis and/or PsA patients in North America and Europe. Patients were selected by list-assisted random digit dialing and did not have to currently be under the care of a health care provider, a patient organization member, or receiving treatment; 139,948 households were screened and 3426 patients completed the survey., Results: The prevalence of psoriasis/PsA ranged from 1.4% to 3.3%; 79% had psoriasis alone and 21% had PsA. When rating disease severity at its worst, 27% (psoriasis) and 53% (PsA ± psoriasis) of patients rated it as severe. Psoriasis patients indicated that their most bothersome signs or symptoms were itching (43%), scales (23%), and flaking (20%). Of psoriasis patients, 45% had not seen a physician in a year; >80% of psoriasis patients with ≥ 4 palms body surface area and 59% of PsA patients were receiving no treatment or topical treatment only. Of patients who had received oral or biologic therapy, 57% and 45%, respectively, discontinued therapy, most often for safety/tolerability reasons and a lack/loss of efficacy., Limitations: The survey lacked a control group, did not account for ethnic and health care system differences across countries, and was limited by factors associated with any patient survey, including accurate recall and interpretation of questions., Conclusions: Several identified unmet needs warrant additional attention and action, including improved severity assessment, PsA screening, patient awareness, and treatment options., (Copyright © 2014 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)