Evidence and consensus-based (S3) guidelines for the treatment of actinic keratosis: International League of Dermatological Societies in cooperation with the European Dermatology Forum: short version

BACKGROUND: Actinic keratosis (AK) is a frequent health condition attributable to chronic exposure to ultraviolet radiation. Several treatment options are available and evidence based guidelines are missing. OBJECTIVES: The goal of these evidence- and consensus-based guidelines was the development of treatment recommendations appropriate for different subgroups of patients presenting with AK. A secondary aim of these guidelines was the implementation of knowledge relating to the clinical background of AK, including consensus-based recommendations for the histopathological definition, diagnosis and the assessment of patients. METHODS: The guidelines development followed a pre-defined and structured process. For the underlying systematic literature review of interventions for AK, the methodology suggested by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was adapted. All recommendations were consented during a consensus conference using a formal consensus methodology. Strength of recommendations was expressed based on the GRADE approach. If expert opinion without external evidence was incorporated into the reasoning for making a certain recommendation, the rationale was provided. The Guidelines underwent open public review and approval by the commissioning societies.RESULTS: Various interventions for the treatment of AK have been assessed for their efficacy. The consenting procedure led to a treatment algorithm as shown in the guidelines document. Based on expert consensus, the present guidelines present recommendations on the classification of patients, diagnosis and histopathological definition of AK. Details on the methods and results of the systematic literature review and guideline development process have been published separately. CONCLUSIONS: International guidelines are intended to be adapted to national or regional circumstances (regulatory approval, availability and reimbursement of treatments).(AU)

Evidence- and consensus-based (S3) Guidelines for the Treatment of Actinic Keratosis - International League of Dermatological Societies in cooperation with the European Dermatology Forum - Short version.

BACKGROUND: Actinic keratosis (AK) is a frequent health condition attributable to chronic exposure to ultraviolet radiation. Several treatment options are available and evidence based guidelines are missing. OBJECTIVES: The goal of these evidence- and consensus-based guidelines was the development of treatment recommendations appropriate for different subgroups of patients presenting with AK. A secondary aim of these guidelines was the implementation of knowledge relating to the clinical background of AK, including consensus-based recommendations for the histopathological definition, diagnosis and the assessment of patients. METHODS: The guidelines development followed a pre-defined and structured process. For the underlying systematic literature review of interventions for AK, the methodology suggested by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was adapted. All recommendations were consented during a consensus conference using a formal consensus methodology. Strength of recommendations was expressed based on the GRADE approach. If expert opinion without external evidence was incorporated into the reasoning for making a certain recommendation, the rationale was provided. The Guidelines underwent open public review and approval by the commissioning societies. RESULTS: Various interventions for the treatment of AK have been assessed for their efficacy. The consenting procedure led to a treatment algorithm as shown in the guidelines document. Based on expert consensus, the present guidelines present recommendations on the classification of patients, diagnosis and histopathological definition of AK. Details on the methods and results of the systematic literature review and guideline development process have been published separately. CONCLUSIONS: International guidelines are intended to be adapted to national or regional circumstances (regulatory approval, availability and reimbursement of treatments).

Risk of complications due to anticoagulation during dermatosurgical procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background Management of anticoagulation and anti-platelet drugs during cutaneous surgery is still a challenge for many dermatologists and standards of care with respect to stopping, continuing or bridging vary widely. Methods We performed a systematic review (Medline, Cochrane Library, until August 27th, 2013) of studies assessing the risk of complications due to anticoagulation during cutaneous surgery. Primary outcomes were mild-moderate and severe postsurgical bleeding. The secondary outcomes were excessive and uncontrollable intraoperative bleeding and other postsurgical complications as wound dehiscence, erythema, wound infection. Results 1.287 publications were identified and 10 studies were included into the review. The frequencies of bleeding in the control groups in general were low (about 1%). In patients on aspirin, increased risks were seen neither with respect to mild-moderate postoperative bleeding (RR 1.1, CI 0.5-2.3), nor with respect to severe bleeding (RR 0.9, CI 0.2-4.6). The studies with patients on warfarin showed a risk for mild-moderate bleeding that was three times as high as in controls (RR 3.2, CI 1.4-7.1) and for severe bleeding that was 15 times higher (RR 14.8, CI 2.7-80.4). In general the study sizes were small and the methodological quality low. Conclusion The risk of bleeding due to a medication with aspirin seems to be negligible. With warfarin, the risk is increased; an exact estimate of the risk increase is difficult to give, because of the lack of sufficient high quality studies. A two-fold increase appears likely, the 15-fold increase is most likely due to statistical reasons arising from the rareness of the event in the small number of included patients. Stopping, bridging or continuing a medication should always be an individual decision. In accordance with guidelines from internal medicine for most patients it will be recommendable to continue with the medication.

Efficacy and safety of systemic treatments for moderate-to-severe psoriasis: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Dermatologists may choose from various conventional and biological systemic agents to treat patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis. We set out to analyse systematically the efficacy and tolerability of approved treatments for moderate-to-severe psoriasis. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy of systemic treatment approved for moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Efficacy was assessed as the proportion of participants with 75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index at primary efficacy measurement (week 8-16). Safety was summarized as rates of adverse events and withdrawals. Direct and indirect comparative efficacy was assessed by random effects meta-analysis of risk differences (RDs). In total, 48 eligible RCTs totalling 16 696 patients (11 178 randomized to biologics, 1888 to conventional treatments) were identified. In placebo-controlled trials, infliximab was the most efficacious [RD 76%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 73-79%]. Adalimumab (RD 61%, 95% CI 56-67%), and ustekinumab 45 mg (RD 63%, 95% CI 59-66%) and 90 mg (RD 67%, 95% CI 60-74%) each had similar efficacy. These biologics are more effective than etanercept and all conventional treatments. Head-to-head trials indicate the superiority of adalimumab and infliximab over methotrexate (MTX), the superiority of ustekinumab over etanercept, the nonsignificant superiority of ciclosporin over MTX, and the dose-dependent efficacy of etanercept and ustekinumab. Fumaric acid is as efficacious as MTX. Safety of treatments could not be pooled due to a lack of standardization in reporting across trials. In conclusion, the qualitative and quantitative evidence is much stronger for biological interventions than for conventional treatments.