[Guidelines on atopic dermatitis for Mexico (GUIDAMEX): using the ADAPTE methodology]. / Guía de dermatitis atópica para México (GUIDAMEX): lineamientos usando metodología ADAPTE.

With the advancement of knowledge in relation to the physiopathogenesis of atopic dermatitis (AD), several new therapeutic forms have been developed. There are also new guidelines for self-care. On the other hand, there is still an underdiagnosis of AD in Mexico. Thus, the need was seen to develop a national guide, with a broad base among the different medical groups that care for patients with AD. The Atopic Dermatitis Guidelines for Mexico (GUIDAMEX) was developed with the ADAPTE methodology, with the endorsement and participation of ten national medical societies, from physicians in Primary Healthcare to allergists and dermatologists. Throughout the manuscript, key clinical questions are answered that lead to recommendations and suggestions for the diagnosis of AD (including differential diagnosis with immunodeficiency syndromes), the recognition of comorbidities and complications, non-pharmacological treatment including therapeutic education, treatment of flares and maintenance therapy. The latter encompasses general measures to avoid triggering factors, first-line treatment focussed on repair of the skin barrier, second-line treatment (topical proactive therapy), and third-line phototherapy or systemic treatment, including dupilumab and JAK inhibitors.

Con el avance de los conocimientos en relación con la fisiopatogenia de la dermatitis atópica (DA) se han desarrollado varias formas terapéuticas nuevas. Asimismo, existen nuevos lineamientos para el autocuidado. Por otro lado, aún existe un subdiagnóstico de la DA en México. Así, se vio la necesidad de desarrollar una guía nacional, con base amplia entre las diferentes agrupaciones médicos que atienden pacientes con DA. Se desarrolló la Guía de DA para México (GUIDAMEX) con la metodología ADAPTE, con el aval y la participación de diez sociedades médicas nacionales, desde médicos del primer contacto hasta alergólogos y dermatólogos. A lo largo del escrito se contestan preguntas clínicas clave que llevan a recomendaciones y sugerencias para el diagnóstico de la DA (incluyendo diagnóstico diferencial con síndromes de inmunodeficiencia), el reconocer de las comorbilidades y complicaciones, las medidas generales (tratamiento no farmacológico) incluyendo la educación terapéutica, el tratamiento de los brotes y el tratamiento de mantenimiento. Este último abarca las medidas generales de evitar agravantes, el tratamiento de primera línea reparador de la barrera cutánea, de segunda línea (manejo proactivo tópico), hasta la fototerapia y el tratamiento sistémico de la tercera línea, incluyendo dupilumab y los inhibidores de la cinasa de Jano.

Efficacy of Intralesional and Oral Dutasteride in the Treatment of Androgenetic Alopecia: A Systematic Review.

Androgenetic alopecia is the most common cause of hair loss [Br J Dermatol. 2011 Jan;164(1):5-15]. Finasteride and minoxidil are the only approved treatments [J Am Acad Dermatol. 2008 Oct;59(4):547-8 and J Eur Acad Dermatology Venereol. 2018 Jan;32(1):11-22]. Dutasteride is more potent than finasteride due to its ability to inhibit both 5-α-reductase type I and II [Our Dermatol Online. 2017 Sep;9(1):75-9] though its adverse effects and long half-life contribute to the reluctance on its oral use. Mesotherapy could be a feasible alternative to avoid systemic exposure and side effects [J Pan-Arab League Dermatologist. 2009 Feb;20(1):137-45]. We aim to perform a systematic review to analyze scientific literature with the purpose of comparing efficacy and adverse effects of both administration routes. Five clinical trials using oral route and 3 intralesional in comparison with placebo met criteria for inclusion. Regarding intralesional dutasteride, only one study [Clin Dermatol. 2001 Mar;19(2):149-54] reported the mean change in hair count. Although both interventions favor over placebo, there are not enough data to reliably compare outcomes obtained between both routes. Mean increase in hair count observed with oral dutasteride was higher (MD: 15.92 hairs [95% CI: 9.87-21.96]; p = <0.00001; I 2 = 90%) compared to intralesional dutasteride in Abdallah's study (MD: 7.90 hairs [95% CI: 7.14-8.66]; p = <0.00001). Future studies are required to assess the therapeutic efficacy of both treatment routes, including head-to-head treatments before well-supported conclusions can be established.

Local secretion of stress hormones increases in alopecia areata lesions after treatment with UVA-1 phototherapy.

Alopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune disease of the hair follicle. Keratinocytes of the hair follicle generate an immunosuppressive environment by the local secretion of hormones of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis of the skin (skin HPA analog). Our objective was to measure the local production of corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH), adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH), and α-melanocyte-stimulating hormone (α-MSH) in the scalp tissue of patients with AA before and after ultraviolet A1 (UVA-1) phototherapy to determine their role in the pathogenesis of AA and the effect of UVA-1 on the AA hormonal environment. This was a retrospective and descriptive study of skin samples from 22 patients with AA before and after UVA-1 treatment. We compared the changes in the local hormonal environment by measuring CRH, ACTH, type 2 melanocortin receptor (ACTH receptor) and α-MSH with immunohistochemical stains. The positivity of MSH was significantly higher (P = .037) in the post-treatment samples compared with the baseline value. ACTH was significantly higher in intensity (P = .032) in the post-treatment samples compared with the initial value. CRH was significantly higher in intensity (P = .013) in baseline samples compared with the final biopsies. The positivity of the ACTH receptor MC2R was not different between the two groups (P = .626). In AA, an interruption in the signalling of CRH could decrease the local concentration of ACTH and MSH, and consequently, the immunosuppressive effect of these hormones. This phenomenon is normalized in the skin treated with UVA-1. A defective signalling system in the cutaneous HPA axis may be involved in the pathogenesis of AA.

Acral bullous lichen sclerosus intolerant to UVA-1 successfully treated with narrowband ultraviolet B phototherapy.

Lichen sclerosus (LS) is an uncommon, chronic, lymphocyte-mediated, inflammatory dermatosis characterized by ivory-white patches with scar-like atrophy. Extragenital bullous lichen sclerosus may rarely affect palms and soles, causing severe pain and substantially impairing quality of life. We present the first case of acral bullous lichen sclerosus intolerant to UVA-1 phototherapy successfully treated with low doses of narrowband ultraviolet B phototherapy.

A Case of Bullous Morphea Resistant to Methotrexate and Phototherapy Successfully Treated With Mycophenolate Mofetil.

Bullous morphea is rare clinical variant of localized scleroderma characterized by the formation of bullae on sclerotic morphea plaques. Severe disease may be highly disabling and greatly impair quality of life. Current treatment strategies are based on anecdotal reports of clinical experience and include topical corticosteroids, methotrexate and phototherapy. Herein, we describe the case of a 56-year-old woman with progressive bullous sclerotic lesions who was successfully treated with mycophenolate mofetil after treatment failure with psoralen plus ultraviolet A therapy, ultraviolet A1 phototherapy, and methotrexate. Treatment with mycophenolate mofetil halted disease progression after 8 weeks. No major adverse effects were recorded in a 3-year follow-up with continuous treatment. This case suggests mycophenolate mofetil may be considered as an alternative for the treatment of resistant bullous morphea lesions. J Drugs Dermatol. 2018;17(10):1123-1125.

Escalating dosimetry of UVA-1 in the treatment of alopecia areata.

BACKGROUND: Phototherapy can be an option in unresponsive alopecia areata (AA); however, variable results have been reported with its use. We could not find literature of treatment with UVA-1 in AA. A study was designed to evaluate progressive dosimetry to determine the initial dose and its increments. METHODS: Patients with unresponsive AA were recruited. Twenty-five sessions of 30 J/cm2 were administered. If hair regrowth was <75%, the dose was escalated to 60 J/cm2 . If hair improvement remained <75%, an additional 25 sessions at 120 J/cm2 were indicated. If total hair regrowth occurred before 75 sessions, a final visit was performed for biopsies and severity of alopecia tool (SALT) evaluation. Clinical and histopathological assessments were performed blindly. Adverse effects were recorded. RESULTS: Nine men and 13 women were included; 16 were initially S1 , one S3 , and five S4 . Median age was 32 years and median evolution 10 months. Nine patients achieved an S0 , eight S1 , and five S4 (P = 0.005). The most notable improvement was with 60 J/cm2 (P = 0.02). Biopsies exhibited an absence of inflammation in five patients and mild persistence in 17. An increase of 43.75% in anagen hairs (P ≤ 0.001) was achieved, telogen hairs decreased 16.3% (P = 0.06), and catagen hairs were reduced 22.7% (P = 0.005). Pearson's correlation was -0.82 and P ≤ 0.001, when correlating anagen hairs with final SALT. Improvement has continued for 6 months post treatment. Mild xerosis was observed in all patients, and six (28.6%) developed transient mild hyperpigmentation. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a basis for UVA-1 dosimetry evaluating its therapeutic value in AA.

[Mexican treatment goals for plaque psoriasis]. / Metas mexicanas de tratamiento de psoriasis en placas.

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory disease with a worldwide prevalence between 6 and 39% in moderate to severe forms. In European countries like Germany and England was identified that only one third of patients with moderate to severe forms will receive systemic management, this fact motivated to integrate into Europe an international consensus on treatment goals with the aim of providing support to the dermatologist by algorithms that serve as a therapeutic guide that allows you to gain control short and long term effects of this disease. The European group met to develop the definitions of severity of psoriasis, treatment goals for moderate to severe disease, and optimization options and / or therapeutic transition than a paper published in 2011 was obtained. In Mexico a working group of experts on biological therapy (GTEB), made up of 10 members and an extended group of 150 dermatologists' voters in the country for the purpose of issuing Mexico's position on the proposals of the European group was formed. In this document the findings of the Working Group of Experts on Biological Therapy in Mexico are listed.

La psoriasis es una enfermedad crónica inflamatoria, con una prevalencia mundial entre 6 y 39% en las formas moderadas a severas. En países europeos como Alemania e Inglaterra se identificó que solo la tercera parte de los pacientes que padecen formas moderadas a severas reciben manejo sistémico; este hecho motivó la integración en Europa de un consenso internacional sobre metas de tratamiento con el objetivo de brindar apoyo al dermatólogo con algoritmos que sirvan como guía terapéutica para lograr el control a corto y largo plazo de esta enfermedad. El grupo europeo se reunió para elaborar las definiciones de severidad de la psoriasis, las metas de tratamiento en la enfermedad moderada a severa, entre otros temas, de lo que se obtuvo un documento publicado en el 2011. En México se conformó un grupo de trabajo de expertos en terapia biológica (GTEB), formado por 10 integrantes y un grupo extendido de 150 dermatólogos votantes del país, con la finalidad de emitir la posición de México sobre las propuestas del grupo europeo. En el presente documento se enumeran las conclusiones del grupo de trabajo de expertos en terapia biológica en México.