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.

Economical LED based, real-time, in vivo imaging of murine corneal wound healing.

An optimal system for monitoring in vivo corneal wound healing is inexpensive, has utility for wounding and imaging, and is able to provide previews before photography. We outline such an imaging system that takes advantage of a consumer digital camera and an LED-based light source for fluorescein excitation. Using FVB/NJ mice, 2mm diameter, circular, axial corneal epithelial defects were created using a crescent blade. The corneal wounds were imaged every four hours until healed using a Nikon Coolpix 5400 camera attached to a Nikon SMZ-10A stereomicroscope, using the illumination from a 16 LED 464nm flashlight. The wound area was calculated, and the linear regressions of the linear phase of wound healing were compared using the F-test. The slopes of the linear regressions for the 6 trials of 4 mice/trial had an average of -52.95microm/h (SEM=0.55microm/h) and were statistically equivalent (p>0.05). The mean of the R(2) values for the linear regressions was 0.9546 (SEM=0.0121). The equivalent linear regressions and R(2)>0.90 suggest that the imaging system could precisely monitor the wound healing of multiple trials and of animals within each trial, respectively. Using a consumer digital camera and LED-based illumination, we have established a system that is economical, is used in both wounding and imaging, is operated by a single person, and is able to provide real-time previews to monitor corneal wound healing precisely.

Rapid contrast sensitivity assessment in keratoconus.

Contrast sensitivity derangement may accompany keratoconus even in the presence of normal or near normal Snellen visual acuity. This has been demonstrated with computer-driven contrast sensitivity test devices. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the utility and efficacy of rapid screening devices for contrast sensitivity testing. However, such devices are often cumbersome and difficult to use clinically. We tested 12 patients with keratoconus on 2 simple chart systems designed to test contrast sensitivity in a rapid and clinically useful manner: the Vistech chart and the Regan multi-contrast visual acuity charts. Both devices detected the contrast sensitivity abnormalities present in early keratoconus, but some patients [with greater than or equal to 6/12 (20/40) visual acuity] were unable to respond to areas of the charts corresponding to high spatial frequency and/or low contrast tasks. Such simple wall charts may be useful in measuring the visual abnormalities in early keratoconus, in monitoring the progression of the disease, and in evaluating various treatment options.