Clinical spectrum and long-term outcomes of mpox: a cohort study spanning from acute infection to six-month follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Cases of mpox have been reported worldwide since May 2022. Limited knowledge exists regarding the long-term course of this disease. To assess sequelae in terms of scarring and quality of life (QoL) in mpox patients 4-6 months after initial infection. METHODS: Prospective observational study on clinical characteristics and symptoms of patients with polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed mpox, including both outpatients and inpatients. Follow-up visits were conducted at 4-6 months, assessing the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and sexual impairment, using a numeric rating scale (NRS) from 0 to 10. RESULTS: Forty-three patients, age range 19-64 years, 41 men (all identifying as MSM) and 2 women, were included. Upon diagnosis, skin or mucosal lesions were present in 93.0% of cases, with 73.3% reporting pain (median intensity: 8, Q1-Q3: 6-10). Anal involvement resulted in a significantly higher frequency of pain than genital lesions (RR: 3.60, 95%-CI: 1.48-8.74). Inpatient treatment due to pain, superinfection, abscess or other indications was required in 20 patients (46.5%). After 4-6 months, most patients did not have significant limitations, scars or pain. However, compared to patients without such complications, patients with superinfection or abscess during the acute phase had significantly more extensive scar formation (median PSAS: 24.0 vs. 11.0, p = 0.039) and experienced a significantly greater impairment of their QoL (median DLQI: 2.0 vs. 0.0, p = 0.036) and sexuality (median NRS: 5.0 vs. 0.0, p = 0.017). CONCLUSION: We observed a wide range of clinical mpox manifestations, with some patients experiencing significant pain and requiring hospitalization. After 4-6 months, most patients recovered without significant sequelae, but those with abscesses or superinfections during the initial infection experienced a significant reduction in QoL and sexuality. Adequate treatment, including antiseptic and antibiotic therapy during the acute phase, may help prevent such complications, and hence, improve long-term outcomes.

S2k guideline: Diagnosis and therapy of localized scleroderma.

The updated S2k guideline deals with the diagnosis and therapy of localized scleroderma (LoS). LoS represents a spectrum of sclerotic skin diseases in which, depending on the subtype and localisation, structures such as adipose tissue, muscles, joints, and bones may also be affected. Involvement of internal organs or progression to systemic sclerosis does not occur. LoS can be classified into four main forms: limited, generalized, linear, and mixed forms, with some additional subtypes. For cases of limited skin involvement, the guideline primarily recommends therapy with topical corticosteroids. UV therapy can also be recommended. In subtypes with severe skin or musculoskeletal involvement, systemic therapy with methotrexate is recommended. During the active phase of the disease, systemic glucocorticosteroids can be used additionally. In cases of methotrexate and steroid refractory courses, contraindications, or intolerance, mycophenolate mofetil, mycophenolic acid, or abatacept can be considered as second-line systemic therapies. In the case of linear LoS, autologous adipose-derived stem cell transplantation can also be performed for correcting soft tissue defects.

S3 guideline Atopic dermatitis: Part 2 - Systemic treatment.

The present S3 guideline was created based on the European English-language S3 guideline, with special consideration given to the medical conditions in the German-speaking region, and with additions from the previous German-language version, in accordance with the criteria of the AWMF. This second part of the guideline addresses the systemic therapy of atopic dermatitis (AD). It covers topics such as the indication for systemic therapy in children, adolescents, and adult patients with AD. Furthermore, it addresses all medications approved for AD, such as the biologics dupilumab and tralokinumab, the Janus kinase inhibitors abrocitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib, as well as conventional immunosuppressive therapies with systemic glucocorticosteroids and ciclosporin. Additionally, it discusses systemic off-label therapies. The first part of the guideline, published separately, includes the definition and diagnostic aspects of AD, describes topical therapy, non-drug therapy approaches, and addresses aspects related to special patient groups.

S3 Guideline Atopic dermatitis: Part 1 - General aspects, topical and non-drug therapies, special patient groups.

This S3 guideline was created based on the European S3 guideline, with special consideration of the medical conditions in the German-speaking region and incorporating additions from the previous German-language version. The interdisciplinary guideline commission consisted of representatives from the German Dermatological Society, the Professional Association of German Dermatologists, the Austrian Society of Dermatology and Venereology, the Swiss Society of Dermatology and Venereology, the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology, the German Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, the Professional Association of Pediatricians and Adolescent Medicine, the Society for Pediatric Allergology and Environmental Medicine, the German Society for Pediatric Rehabilitation and Prevention, the German Society for Psychosomatic Medicine and Medical Psychotherapy, the German Network for Health Services Research, the German Eczema Association and the German Allergy and Asthma Association. This first part of the guideline focuses on the definition and diagnostic aspects of atopic dermatitis (AD), addressing topical therapy as well as non-pharmacological treatment approaches such as UV therapy, psychoeducational therapy, dietary interventions for AD, allergen immunotherapy for AD, and complementary medicine. This part of the guideline also covers specific aspects of AD in children and adolescents, during pregnancy and lactation, and in the context of family planning. Additionally, it addresses occupational aspects of AD and highlights the perspective of the patients. The second part of the guideline, published separately, addresses the systemic therapy of AD.

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease with either skin or joints manifestations, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. The relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES: To compare the benefits and harms of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their benefits and harms. SEARCH METHODS: For this update of the living systematic review, we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to October 2022: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults over 18 years with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, compared to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes were: proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90; proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase (8 to 24 weeks after randomisation). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We conducted duplicate study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and analyses. We synthesised data using pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare treatments and rank them according to effectiveness (PASI 90 score) and acceptability (inverse of SAEs). We assessed the certainty of NMA evidence for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons using CINeMA, as very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer treatment hierarchy, from 0% (worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (best for effectiveness or safety). MAIN RESULTS: This update includes an additional 12 studies, taking the total number of included studies to 179, and randomised participants to 62,339, 67.1% men, mainly recruited from hospitals. Average age was 44.6 years, mean PASI score at baseline was 20.4 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most studies were placebo-controlled (56%). We assessed a total of 20 treatments. Most (152) trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). One-third of the studies (65/179) had high risk of bias, 24 unclear risk, and most (90) low risk. Most studies (138/179) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 24 studies did not report a funding source. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than placebo. Anti-IL17 treatment showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 compared to all the interventions. Biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than the non-biological systemic agents. For reaching PASI 90, the most effective drugs when compared to placebo were (SUCRA rank order, all high-certainty evidence): infliximab (risk ratio (RR) 49.16, 95% CI 20.49 to 117.95), bimekizumab (RR 27.86, 95% CI 23.56 to 32.94), ixekizumab (RR 27.35, 95% CI 23.15 to 32.29), risankizumab (RR 26.16, 95% CI 22.03 to 31.07). Clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar when compared against each other. Bimekizumab and ixekizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than secukinumab. Bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than brodalumab and guselkumab. Infliximab, anti-IL17 drugs (bimekizumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, and brodalumab), and anti-IL23 drugs except tildrakizumab were significantly more likely to reach PASI 90 than ustekinumab, three anti-TNF alpha agents, and deucravacitinib. Ustekinumab was superior to certolizumab. Adalimumab, tildrakizumab, and ustekinumab were superior to etanercept. No significant difference was shown between apremilast and two non-biological drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. The risk of SAEs was significantly lower for participants on methotrexate compared with most of the interventions. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with very low- to moderate-certainty evidence for all the comparisons. The findings therefore have to be viewed with caution. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1), the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review shows that, compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation), and is not sufficient for evaluating longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean 44.6 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20.4 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the safety evidence for most interventions was very low to moderate quality. More randomised trials directly comparing active agents are needed, and these should include systematic subgroup analyses (sex, age, ethnicity, comorbidities, psoriatic arthritis). To provide long-term information on the safety of treatments included in this review, an evaluation of non-randomised studies is needed. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Self-applied topical interventions for melasma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of data from randomized, investigator-blinded clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Melasma is a common dermatological condition. Although its relevance as a skin condition is primarily of a cosmetic nature, it may affect the patient's wellbeing and quality of life. A broad range of treatment options is available, which makes it difficult to choose the most appropriate of those treatments. OBJECTIVES: To summarize and critically appraise evidence from investigator-blinded randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy and safety of self-applied topical interventions for melasma. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane CENTRAL trials database for RCTs on topical, self-administered interventions for patients diagnosed with melasma. Eligibility was limited to RCTs that explicitly stated in their methods section (i) how they generated the random allocation sequence, and (ii) that the study outcome assessor was blinded to the participants' group allocation. Outcomes of interest included evaluator-assessed clinical scores (such as the Melasma Area and Severity Index), quality of life and patient-reported outcomes, as well as safety outcomes. The study findings were meta-analysed, pooling data from studies on the same comparisons, if this was possible. We assessed confidence in effect estimates using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Our searches yielded 1078 hits. We included 36 studies reporting on 47 different comparisons of interventions. These included medical treatments such as 'triple combination cream' (TCC), over-the-counter cosmetic and herbal products, as well as sun creams covering different light spectra. Pooling data was possible for only two comparisons, topical tranexamic acid (TXA) vs. hydroquinone (HQ) and cysteamine vs. placebo. Direct comparisons were available for a variety of interventions; however, the reported outcomes varied greatly. Overall, our confidence in the effect estimates ranged from very low to high. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that TCC and its individual components HQ and tretinoin are effective in lightening melasma. Besides these established self-applied treatment options, we identified further medical treatments as well as promising cosmetic and herbal product treatment approaches. Furthermore, evidence suggests that using broad-spectrum sunscreen covering both the visible and ultraviolet-light spectrum enhances the treatment efficacy of HQ. However, with mostly small RCTs comparing treatments directly using a broad range of outcomes, further research is needed to draw conclusions about which treatment is most effective. What is already known about this topic? Melasma is a common dermatological disease. Although it is primarily a cosmetic condition, it can severely affect the patient's wellbeing and quality of life. Treatment options for melasma include a broad range of medical, cosmetic and herbal products. Given the large number of available interventions, it is difficult for clinicians and for patients to make informed decisions about which treatment to choose. What does this study add? We systematically assessed data from investigator-blinded randomized controlled trials of self-applied topical interventions. Our GRADE evaluations of confidence in the findings ranged from very low to high and may help clinicians and patients navigate treatment decisions. Besides the established self-applied medical treatment options, we identified promising cosmetic and herbal treatment approaches. Evidence suggests sunscreen covering the ultraviolet (UV)- and visible light spectra increases treatment efficacy compared with UV-only protection.

[Granulomatous dermatoses]. / Granulomatöse Dermatosen.

The group of granulomatous dermatoses refers to a multitude of clinically different diseases, which are characterized by a histopathologically similar pattern of inflammation. The cause of granulomatous inflammatory reactions can be infections and also noninfectious stimuli, such as cell disintegration or foreign bodies. The aim of this immunological defence reaction is encapsulation in order to prevent further spread and delimitation from healthy tissue. This is histologically expressed as a granuloma in the sense of a circumscribed aggregation of histiocytes and multinucleated giant cells mostly in dermal connective tissue. The following can be histologically differentiated: sarcoid granuloma characterized by a sparse lymphocytic inflammatory infiltrate and tuberculous granuloma with central necrosis and denser lymphocytic inflammatory infiltrate. Neutrophilic granulocytes together with macrophages occur in suppurative granulomas and palisaded granulomas are characterized by peripherally arrayed macrophages.

S2k guideline: Rosacea.

This updated and upgraded S2k guideline deals with the diagnosis and treatment of rosacea, which is a common, chronic inflammatory skin disease mostly affecting the face. Initially, rosacea is characterized by recurrent erythema, telangiectasia and flushing. Later, the inflammatory component predominates, with persistent erythema with follicular papules, papulopustules and pustules. The development of phyma, which usually occurs on the acral localizations, is the most severe manifestation. For the treatment of rosacea, the interdisciplinary guideline committee, with representatives of the German Dermatological Society (DDG), the Professional Association of German Dermatologists (BVDD), the German Opthalmological Society (DOG), the Society for Dermopharmacy (GD), the Swiss Society for Dermatology and Venereology (SGDV) and the German Rosacea Aid e. V., recommends the avoidance of trigger factors and topical applications of metronidazole, azelaic acid or ivermectin. For symptomatic treatment of persistent centrofacial erythema, the topical vasoconstrictors brimonidine or oxymetazoline can also be used. Systemic therapy is recommended for therapy-resistant and severe forms of rosacea papulopustulosa. The drug of choice is low-dose doxycycline. Alternatively, low-dose isotretinoin can be recommended. Ocular rosacea should be treated with lid margin hygiene. For topical treatment, ciclosporin eye drops, azithromycin, ivermectin or metronidazole are suggested.

[Genital lichen sclerosus and lichen planus]. / Genitaler Lichen sclerosus und Lichen planus.

Lichen sclerosus (LS) and lichen planus (LP) are chronic inflammatory dermatoses of unknown aetiology. They pose the most important differential diagnoses of inflammatory dermatoses in the genital area. There is often a delay in diagnosing LS and LP and subsequently treatment is initiated late in the course of the disease, which will lead to scarring and a decreased quality of life. There is an increased risk of the development of malignancies in the genital area in both diseases; however, early and continuous treatment with potent topical steroids will decrease this risk.

[Current guidelines for the management of anogenital diseases]. / Aktuelle Leitlinien zur Diagnostik und Therapie von Erkrankungen im Anogenitalbereich.

BACKGROUND: Anogenital disorders encompass a broad spectrum of conditions with diverse pathogenetic origins, often presenting with nonspecific symptoms and overlapping causative factors, thereby posing diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. Effective management requires interdisciplinary knowledge and the use of medical guidelines. Guidelines can play an important role in translating current knowledge into clinical practice and ensuring consistent care, minimizing complications, and optimizing patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The dermatologically relevant guidelines for anogenital disorders, categorized by etiological groups, are reviewed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A selective literature review was conducted, incorporating data from the guideline repository of the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF). RESULTS: A broad range of current guidelines pertinent to the management of anogenital disorders with relevance for dermatologists is available. These encompass guidelines for the management of chronic inflammatory dermatoses with (potential) involvement of the anogenital region, such as anal eczema, psoriasis, lichen sclerosus, or lichen ruber, as well as sexually transmitted infections and associated conditions, involving a broad range of pathogens, including gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, or human papillomaviruses (HPV)-associated disorders. In this article, we provide an overview of the available guidelines. CONCLUSION: The present article does not claim to be exhaustive. The validity of the mentioned guidelines and the availability of updates needs to be verified in each case.

[Monoclonal antibodies for inflammatory, autoimmune and oncological skin diseases]. / Monoklonale Antikörper für entzündliche, autoimmune und onkologische Hauterkrankungen.

In 1997 rituximab, a genetically engineered chimeric monoclonal antibody (mAb) targeting CD20 expressed on B cells was approved for treatment of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Since then, pharmacological improvements combined with increased knowledge on the immunopathogenesis of diseases led to the development of specific mAb targeting different antigens (e.g., interleukins or transmembrane receptors). This approach reshaped the therapeutic methodology in many fields, including dermatology. Nowadays, the treatment of frequent and possibly impairing inflammatory disorders such as psoriasis, atopic dermatitis or hidradenitis suppurativa have different mAbs approved for both adult and pediatric patients. This class of drugs often shows a more favorable outcome and a better safety profile than routine immunosuppressants, such as steroids and steroid-sparing substances. For many years mAbs also represented a pillar of oncological treatment for severe diseases such as malignant melanoma or Merkel cell carcinoma. This review summarizes the current knowledge on already approved and promising new mAbs for the treatment of inflammatory and oncological skin diseases.

Italian S3-Guideline on the treatment of Atopic Eczema - Part 1: Systemic therapy, adapted from EuroGuiDerm by the Italian Society of Dermatology and STD (SIDEMAST), the Italian Association of Hospital Dermatologists (ADOI) and the Italian Society of Allergological and Environmental Dermatology (SIDAPA).

SIDeMaST (Società Italiana di Dermatologia Medica, Chirurgica, Estetica e delle Malattie Sessualmente Trasmesse) contributed to the development of the present guideline on the systemic treatment of chronic plaque psoriasis. With the permission of EuroGuiDerm, SIDeMaST adapted the guideline to the Italian healthcare context to supply a reliable and affordable tool to Italian physicians who take care of patients affected by atopic dermatitis. The evidence- and consensus-based guideline on atopic eczema was developed in accordance with the EuroGuiDerm Guideline and Consensus Statement Development Manual. Four consensus conferences were held between December 2020 and July 2021. Twenty-nine experts (including clinicians and patient representatives) from 12 European countries participated. This first part of the guideline includes general information on its scope and purpose, the health questions covered, target users and a methods section. It also provides guidance on which patients should be treated with systemic therapies, as well as recommendations and detailed information on each systemic drug. The systemic treatment options discussed in the guideline comprise conventional immunosuppressive drugs (azathioprine, ciclosporin, glucocorticosteroids, methotrexate and mycophenolate mofetil), biologics (dupilumab, lebrikizumab, nemolizumab, omalizumab and tralokinumab) and janus kinase inhibitors (abrocitinib, baricitinib and upadacitinib). Part two of the guideline will address avoidance of provocation factors, dietary interventions, immunotherapy, complementary medicine, educational interventions, occupational and psychodermatological aspects, patient perspective and considerations for pediatric, adolescent, pregnant and breastfeeding patients.

Italian S3-Guideline on the treatment of Atopic Eczema - Part 2: non-systemic treatments and treatment recommendations for special AE patient populations, adapted from EuroGuiDerm by the Italian Society of Dermatology and STD (SIDEMAST), the Italian Association of Hospital Dermatologists (ADOI) and the Italian Society of Allergological and Occupational Dermatology (SIDAPA).

SIDeMaST (Società Italiana di Dermatologia Medica, Chirurgica, Estetica e delle Malattie Sessualmente Trasmesse) contributed to the development of the present guideline on the systemic treatment of chronic plaque psoriasis. With the permission of EuroGuiDerm, SIDeMaST adapted the guideline to the Italian healthcare context to supply a reliable and affordable tool to Italian physicians who take care of patients affected by atopic dermatitis. The evidence- and consensus-based guideline on atopic eczema was developed in accordance with the EuroGuiDerm Guideline and Consensus Statement Development Manual. Four consensus conferences were held between December 2020 and July 2021. Twenty-nine experts (including clinicians and patient representatives) from 12 European countries participated. This second part of the guideline includes recommendations and detailed information on basic therapy with emollients and moisturizers, topical anti-inflammatory treatment, antimicrobial and antipruritic treatment and UV phototherapy. Furthermore, this part of the guideline covers techniques for avoiding provocation factors, as well as dietary interventions, immunotherapy, complementary medicine and educational interventions for patients with atopic eczema and deals with occupational and psychodermatological aspects of the disease. It also contains guidance on treatment for pediatric and adolescent patients and pregnant or breastfeeding women, as well as considerations for patients who want to have a child. A chapter on the patient perspective is also provided. The first part of the guideline, published separately, contains recommendations and guidance on systemic treatment with conventional immunosuppressive drugs, biologics and janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, as well as information on the scope and purpose of the guideline, and a section on guideline methodology.

Italian S3-Guideline on the treatment of Atopic Eczema - First Update, adapted from EuroGuiDerm by the Italian Society of Dermatology and STD (SIDEMAST), the Italian Association of Hospital Dermatologists (ADOI) and the Italian Society of Allergological and Occupational Dermatology (SIDAPA).

The evidence- and consensus-based guideline on atopic eczema, published in JEADV on 18 August 2022 (part 1) and 3 September 2022 (part 2) was developed in accordance with the EuroGuiDerm Guideline and Consensus Statement Development Manual. Four consensus conferences were held between December 2020 and July 2021. Twenty-nine experts (including clinicians and patient representatives) from 12 European countries participated. To reflect the most recent evidence on novel systemic medications, an update was published in October 2022. According to the purpose of the Italian Society of Dermatology and STD (SIDEMAST), the Italian Association of Hospital Dermatologists (ADOI) and the Italian Society of Allergological and Environmental Dermatology (SIDAPA) to adapt the EuroGuiDerm guideline on the treatment of atopic eczema into the Italian Healthcare setting, the original update has been supplemented by inserting notes, well highlighted by the original text, to emphasize the laws, rules, procedures and suggestions of the Italian Ministry of Health and regional Health authorities.