Recommendations for rosacea diagnosis, classification and management: update from the global ROSacea COnsensus 2019 panel.

BACKGROUND: A transition from a subtyping to a phenotyping approach in rosacea is underway, allowing individual patient management according to presenting features instead of categorization by predefined subtypes. The ROSacea COnsensus (ROSCO) 2017 recommendations further support this transition and align with guidance from other working groups. OBJECTIVES: To update and extend previous global ROSCO recommendations in line with the latest research and continue supporting uptake of the phenotype approach in rosacea through clinical tool development. METHODS: Nineteen dermatologists and two ophthalmologists used a modified Delphi approach to reach consensus on statements pertaining to critical aspects of rosacea diagnosis, classification and management. Voting was electronic and blinded. RESULTS: Delphi statements on which the panel achieved consensus of ≥ 75% voting 'Agree' or 'Strongly agree' are presented. The panel recommends discussing disease burden with patients during consultations, using four questions to assist conversations. The primary treatment objective should be achievement of complete clearance, owing to previously established clinical benefits for patients. Cutaneous and ocular features are defined. Treatments have been reassessed in line with recent evidence and the prior treatment algorithm updated. Combination therapy is recommended to benefit patients with multiple features. Ongoing monitoring and dialogue should take place between physician and patients, covering defined factors to maximize outcomes. A prototype clinical tool (Rosacea Tracker) and patient case studies have been developed from consensus statements. CONCLUSIONS: The current survey updates previous recommendations as a basis for local guideline development and provides clinical tools to facilitate a phenotype approach in practice and improve rosacea patient management. What's already known about this topic? A transition to a phenotype approach in rosacea is underway and is being recommended by multiple working groups. New research has become available since the previous ROSCO consensus, necessitating an update and extension of recommendations. What does this study add? We offer updated global recommendations for clinical practice that account for recent research, to continue supporting the transition to a phenotype approach in rosacea. We present prototype clinical tools to facilitate use of the phenotype approach in practice and improve management of patients with rosacea.

Updating the diagnosis, classification and assessment of rosacea: recommendations from the global ROSacea COnsensus (ROSCO) panel.

BACKGROUND: Rosacea is currently diagnosed by consensus-defined primary and secondary features and managed by subtype. However, individual features (phenotypes) can span multiple subtypes, which has implications for clinical practice and research. Adopting a phenotype-led approach may facilitate patient-centred management. OBJECTIVES: To advance clinical practice by obtaining international consensus to establish a phenotype-led rosacea diagnosis and classification scheme with global representation. METHODS: Seventeen dermatologists and three ophthalmologists used a modified Delphi approach to reach consensus on statements pertaining to critical aspects of rosacea diagnosis, classification and severity evaluation. All voting was electronic and blinded. RESULTS: Consensus was achieved for transitioning to a phenotype-based approach to rosacea diagnosis and classification. The following two features were independently considered diagnostic for rosacea: (i) persistent, centrofacial erythema associated with periodic intensification; and (ii) phymatous changes. Flushing, telangiectasia, inflammatory lesions and ocular manifestations were not considered to be individually diagnostic. The panel reached agreement on dimensions for phenotype severity measures and established the importance of assessing the patient burden of rosacea. CONCLUSIONS: The panel recommended an approach for diagnosis and classification of rosacea based on disease phenotype.

Topical vitamin D analogues alone or in association with topical steroids for psoriasis: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review was to prepare for evidence-based recommendations on the use of vitamin D analogues, and their combination with topical steroids in psoriasis. METHODS: Literature systematic review performed in May 2011. The Cochrane, PubMed and Embase databases were systematically searched with different combinations: including Psoriasis AND calcipotriol expanded to all vitamin D analogues. To assess efficacy across studies, we used two predefined criteria to account for the numerous endpoints found in the literature, 'Treatment success' corresponding to 90% improvement in severity and 'Satisfactory response' corresponding to 75% improvement. We conducted a meta-analysis comparing the efficacy of vitamin D analogues plus topical steroids (VDS) vs. vitamin D analogues alone (VD). To determine the relative cost-efficacy of the topical drugs available on the market, cost/efficacy ratios were calculated for each product according to the approved therapeutic regimen. RESULTS: 51 articles were selected. The application duration varied between three to 52 weeks across studies. VD as monotherapy had a satisfactory response rate between 22% to 96% and a treatment success rate ranging from 4% to 40%. VDS had a satisfactory response rate between 35% to 86% and a treatment success rate ranging from 27% to 53%. A meta-analysis found a probability of success twice higher with VDS than with VD in adult plaque psoriasis. The cost/efficacy ratio was evaluated as 1.2-1.8 times higher for VDS than for VD. CONCLUSION: VDS is twice more effective than VD and displays a better cost per success. Additional studies are needed to clarify maintenance treatment, impact on quality of life, treatment of non-plaque psoriasis. It will be important to harmonize outcome measures in future studies with topical agents in psoriasis to better appraise their efficacy.

Assessment of risk of psoriatic arthritis in patients with plaque psoriasis: a systematic review of the literature.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in the patients with plaque psoriasis and to give recommendation for the diagnosis of PsA for dermatologists. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in Pubmed, Cochrane and Embase databases. The key-words used from the Medical Searching Heading (MeSH) were: 'Psoriasis', 'Arthritis, Psoriatic', 'Uveitis' and 'Dactylitis'. We selected cross-sectional epidemiological studies written in English or French between January 1980 and October 2009. RESULTS: The initial literature search identified 2171 references. Based on abstract reading and exclusion of studies not written in English or French, and without control group, the final selection included 20 epidemiological studies. With the eight studies using rheumatologically validated criteria, the prevalence of PsA among psoriasis patient spanned a wide range from 7% to 26%. CONCLUSION: Psoriasis arthritis may affect up to 24% of psoriasis patients. Dermatologist should be aware of main clinical sign of PsA to promote earlier recognition and treatment of PsA.