Variability in patch test reactions--first report from the Norwegian Patch Test Registry.

BACKGROUND: A nation-wide Norwegian Patch Test Registry (NOLAR) was established in 2005 as a collaboration between six dermatology departments. International, multi-centre studies have documented great variability in the frequency of positive patch test reactions, considered as mainly due to heterogeneity of test populations. OBJECTIVES: To analyse the variability of positive test reactions by studying patch tests performed at the six collaborating departments, using standardized procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from all patch tests (n = 2089) performed in 2007-2008 as registered in the NOLAR program. Differences between centres were analysed using Exact Pearson chi(2) test. RESULTS: Between the centres, positive test reactions (+, ++, or +++) varied significantly for 8 of the 26 allergens in the European Baseline Series. When considering strong reactions (++ or +++) only, the differences were statistically significant for six of these allergens, i.e. cobalt chloride, potassium dichromate, p-phenylenediamine, formaldehyde, paraben mix, and mercaptobenzothiazole. CONCLUSION: The results indicate regional differences in the prevalence of sensitization to certain allergens within the Norwegian population, although inter-observer differences cannot be ruled out as a factor.

A new scalp formulation of calcipotriene plus betamethasone compared with its active ingredients and the vehicle in the treatment of scalp psoriasis: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: New topical treatments in scalp psoriasis are needed because many current topical treatments are disliked by patients and associated with poor compliance. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of once-daily, two-compound scalp formulation containing calcipotriene plus betamethasone dipropionate with the individual components in the same vehicle and the vehicle alone. METHODS: In this 8-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study, patients with scalp psoriasis were randomized to treatment with the two-compound scalp formulation (calcipotriene 50 microg/g plus betamethasone 0.5 mg/g, as dipropionate) (n = 541), betamethasone 0.5 mg/g (as dipropionate) in the same vehicle (n = 556), calcipotriene 50 microg/g in the same vehicle (n = 272), or vehicle alone (n = 136). RESULTS: More patients achieved "absent" or "very mild" disease at week 8 with the two-compound scalp formulation (71.2%) compared with betamethasone dipropionate in the same vehicle (64.0%, p = .011), calcipotriene in the same vehicle (36.8%, p < .0001), or the vehicle (22.8%, p < .0001). LIMITATIONS: Efficacy of the active comparators in the study has not been established in relation to calcipotriene and betamethasone formulations available for clinical use. CONCLUSION: Calcipotriene plus betamethasone dipropionate scalp formulation was more effective than either of the individual components or the vehicle alone.

Psoriasis of the face and flexures.

Facial and flexural psoriasis may impair the quality of life of psoriatic patients considerably. For the adequate management of psoriasis it is important to pay attention to lesions at these sensitive sites, which require an approach different to that for lesions on other sites in several respects. An extensive literature search was carried out to collect evidence-based data on facial and flexural psoriasis with respect to epidemiology, clinical aspects, pathogenetic factors and various treatments. Subsequently, a panel of experts, the Copenhagen Psoriasis Working Group (CPWG), discussed these aspects and several recommendations were formulated reconciling the evidence-based data. Facial psoriasis occurs in 17-46% of psoriatics and flexural psoriasis is experienced by 6.8-36% of patients with psoriasis. Therefore, psoriasis at these sites cannot be regarded as a rare manifestation. Facial psoriasis is a prognostic marker indicating a poor prognosis of psoriasis. Facial and flexural psoriasis cannot be regarded as distinct disease entities but rather as site variations. The clinical features of facial psoriasis suggest that there are three subtypes: hairline psoriasis, sebo-psoriasis and true facial psoriasis. Otitis externa and ocular manifestations should not be neglected. Evidence that microbiological factors may be relevant to facial and flexural psoriasis is virtually absent. For facial psoriasis the response to UV radiation is variable. At least 5% of psoriatics have photosensitive psoriasis. In these patients photosensitive diseases such as lupus erythematodes and polymorphic light eruption have to be excluded. Based on the literature assessment and working group discussions the CPWG concluded the following. (1) Low-potency topical corticosteroids, vitamin D3 analogues and calcineurin inhibitors are first choice treatments in facial and flexural psoriasis. Evidence for the efficacy of the first two modalities is at level 3 while it is at level 1 for the third one. An individualized approach is indicated; for example, in case of corticosteroid side effects in the past the other two modalities should be selected and in unstable psoriasis prone to irritation, monotherapy with vitamin D3 analogues should be avoided. (2) Antimicrobial treatments are not indicated for facial and flexural psoriasis. (3) Dithranol and tar treatment are not indicated as first-line treatment but only if the first-line options fail. (4) In case topical therapies are not effective, phototherapy and systemic treatments are indicated. (5) For future drug development the combination of vitamin D3 analogues with low strength corticosteroids is recommended.

Onycholysis induced by nail hardener.

Nail hardeners appeared in the market during the 1960s. They were basically solutions of formaldehyde. The first adverse effects were published in 1966 (1). Reactions were onycholysis, chromonychia, subungual haemorrhage, and hyperkeratosis. Onycholysis may be non-inflammatory or inflammatory, and is accompanied by throbbing pain. Inflammatory reactions are followed by paronychia and occasional dermatitis on the digital pulpa.

Psoriasis: severity assessment in clinical practice. Conclusions from workshop discussions and a prospective multicentre survey of psoriasis severity.

Psoriasis treatment is highly individualized. Although a standardized assessment of psoriasis severity for clinical practice may be theoretically advantageous for the purposes of determining treatment, the relevance of currently available research tools in clinical practice is uncertain. Our objectives were to ascertain in workshop discussions and through a prospective survey the relevance of standard severity measures in clinical practice with regard to choice of treatment. Although there was agreement on the possible structure of an algorithm for the treatment-related definition of psoriasis severity, consensus on the cut-off levels for the PASI and %BSA that would indicate a switch in treatment mode could not be reached. The lack of agreement prompted a prospective survey of 112 patients with psoriasis from 10 countries. This survey used a formal questionnaire asking for the PASI and %BSA scores, the patient's self assessment score (VAS ranging from 0 to 10), location of the psoriatic lesions and disease phase. Severity scores from 20 patients pre-selected for inclusion in a trial of a biological agent were included for comparison. Severity scores were analysed in relation to the choice of treatment (topical or systemic, which included phototherapy and combination) suggested by the treating physician.PASI scores differed significantly between the treatment groups (topical vs systemic, p=0.009); however, there was large overlap in the range of PASI scores between the groups. The same was true for VAS scores (topical vs systemic, p=0.035). %BSA scores were not significantly different between treatment groups. There was a large overlap for both the topical and systemic treatment groups with the biologicals group for the range of both the PASI and %BSA scores. A standardized protocol for the evaluation of psoriasis severity based on established severity scores (PASI, %BSA) appears to be unrealistic in day-to-day clinical practice. In clinical practice, a host of factors must be evaluated alongside possible metric measures. This requires experience and the specialized medical education of those involved in the treatment of patients with psoriasis.