S2k guideline diagnosis, prevention, and therapy of hand eczema.

The consensus-based guideline "Diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of hand eczema (HE)" provides concrete instructions and recommendations for diagnosis, prevention, and therapy of HE based on an evidence- and consensus-based approach. The guideline was created based on the German guideline "Management von Handekzemen" from 2009 and the current guideline of the European Society of Contact Dermatitis (ESCD) "Guidelines for diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of hand eczema" from 2022. The general goal of the guideline is to provide dermatologists and allergologists in practice and clinics with an accepted, evidence-based decision-making tool for selecting and conducting suitable and sufficient therapy for patients with hand eczema. The guideline is based on two Cochrane reviews of therapeutic and preventive interventions for HE. The remaining chapters were mainly developed and consented based on non-systematic literature research by the expert group. The expert group consisted of members of allergological and occupational dermatological professional associations and working groups, a patient representative, and methodologists. The proposals for recommendations and key statements were consented by using a nominal group process during a consensus conference on September 15, 2022. The structured consensus-building process was professionally moderated. This guideline is valid until February 22, 2028.

S3 Guidelines: Epicutaneous patch testing with contact allergens and drugs - Short version, Part 2.

Epicutaneous patch testing is the diagnostic standard for the detection of allergic contact dermatitis. The present guidelines are aimed at residents and board-certified physicians in the fields of dermatology and allergology as well as other medical specialties involved in establishing the indication for patch testing and its execution in patients with contact dermatitis and other forms of delayed-type hypersensitivity. The target audience also includes other health care providers and insurance funds. Based on a systematic literature search and a formal consensus process (S3), the guidelines were developed by dermatologists in collaboration with pediatricians, occupational medicine physicians, nursing staff as well as patient representatives. The systematic methodological approach and appraisal of evidence upon which the recommendations are based are outlined in a separate method report that also contains evidence tables. The guidelines address general aspects of patch testing as well as medicolegal issues. The recommendations given relate to topics such as the indication for patch testing, informed patient consent, as well as the choice of test substances, test chambers and test site, duration of exposure, reading times and interpretation of test reactions. Furthermore, recommendations are provided with respect to endogenous and exogenous factors, specific patient groups (children, pregnant women, immunosuppressed individuals) as well as possible risks and adverse events associated with patch testing using contact allergens.

S3 guidelines: Epicutaneous patch testing with contact allergens and drugs - Short version, Part 1.

Epicutaneous patch testing is the diagnostic standard for the detection of allergic contact dermatitis. The present guidelines are aimed at residents and board-certified physicians in the fields of dermatology and allergology as well as other medical specialties involved in establishing the indication for patch testing and its execution in patients with contact dermatitis and other forms of delayed-type hypersensitivity. The target audience also includes other health care providers and insurance funds. Based on a systematic literature search and a formal consensus process (S3), the guidelines were developed by dermatologists in collaboration with pediatricians, occupational medicine physicians, nursing staff as well as patient representatives. The systematic methodological approach and appraisal of evidence upon which the recommendations are based are outlined in a separate method report that also contains evidence tables. The guidelines address general aspects of patch testing as well as medicolegal issues. The recommendations given relate to topics such as the indication for patch testing, informed patient consent, as well as the choice of test substances, test chambers and test site, duration of exposure, reading times and interpretation of test reactions. Furthermore, recommendations are provided with respect to endogenous and exogenous factors, specific patient groups (children, pregnant women, immunosuppressed individuals) as well as possible risks and adverse events associated with patch testing using contact allergens. Note: This publication is part 1 of the short version of the S3 guidelines for "Epicutaneous patch testing using contact allergens and drugs" (registry no. 013 - 018; date: March 20, 2019; valid until December 31, 2021). Part 2 of the short version will be published in the next issue. The long version of these guidelines can be accessed at www.awmf.org. The method report is available as online publication (https://www.awmf.org/leitlinien/detail/ll/013-018.html) and contains the evidence tables in its appendix.

10 years quality assurance of the dermatologist's procedure. ABD review board part II: 2003-2009.

BACKGROUND: The dermatologist's procedure ("procedure for early detection of occupational skin diseases") enables dermatologists to conduct the relevant diagnostics at the expenses of the statutory employers' liability insurance funds (UVT) if there is a possibility of a work-related skin disorder in an employee. Acceptance of this most relevant tool for secondary prevention in occupational dermatology in Germany is high and most dermatologists make careful use of this unparalleled privilege. However, there have been occasional complaints by the UVT, concerning overly extensive diagnostics. Consequently, the Task Force on Occupational and Environmental Dermatology (ABD) of the German Society of Dermatology set up a review board in May 1999. RESULTS: Dermatologists' reports in question were submitted by the UVT to the review board and reviewed separately by two experienced occupational dermatologists both in the 1(st) period (1999-2003) and now in the second period (June 2003 - November 2009). The criticism of the reviewers was mostly directed towards the number of tests and an insufficient documentation in the dermatologist's report. There were 69 dermatologists' reports submitted to the review board (as compared to 155 in the 1(st) period). CONCLUSIONS: The decreased number of dermatologists' reports submitted could be a result of the review process itself. Other factors may include the optimization of the dermatologist's report with a better reimbursement as well as the recent publication of guidelines and continuous education in occupational dermatology with certification of more than 700 dermatologists. These measures of quality assurance are aimed to further optimize the dermatologist's procedure and to allow for improved and more rapid care for patients with occupational dermatoses by dermatologists.

[Four years of quality assurance of dermatologic procedures: report from the ABD clearing institution]. / Vier Jahre Qualitätssicherung im Hautarztverfahren: Bericht aus der Clearingstelle der ABD.

BACKGROUND: Expert dermatologic evaluation is the most relevant tool for secondary prevention in occupational dermatology in Germany. If there is a possibility of a work-related skin disorder in an employee, dermatologists may conduct the relevant diagnostic procedures (e.g. patch-and prick-tests, serology) at the expenses of the public employers' liability insurance fund (UVT). Most dermatologists make careful use of this unparalleled privilege, which is also an obligation. However, recently, with an increasing number of dermatologist's reports submitted, there have been occasional complaints by the UVT concerning overly extensive testing. In 1999 the Task Force on Occupational and Environmental Dermatology (ABD) of the German Dermatological Society established a clearing procedure. Two experienced occupational dermatologists will--separately--give their expert opinion on dermatologist's reports which have been forwarded anonymously by the UVT for expert review. RESULTS: Thus far, from May 1999 to May 2003 155 dermatologist's reports have been submitted to the clearing procedure. The complaints were in > 95% of cases considered justified by the experts. Their criticism was primarily directed towards excessive testing procedures and failure to provide sufficient clinical information. CONCLUSIONS: The UVT does not undertake such extensive preventive efforts for any other occupational disease. Therefore, quality management of the dermatologist's procedure--conducted by dermatologists and providing transparency--is essential to maintain and develop this effective tool of secondary prevention for the benefit of workers and employers.