[Current dermatology guidelines in Germany-selected recommendations from 2021 and 2022]. / Aktuelle dermatologische Leitlinien in Deutschland ­ Ausgewählte Empfehlungen aus den Jahren 2021 und 2022.

Guidelines are systematically developed decision-making aids to ensure appropriate clinical care for specific medical conditions. In Germany, dermatological guidelines are developed under the aegis of the German Dermatological Society (DDG) and the Professional Association of German Dermatologists (BVDD), while European and international guidelines are published by organisations such as the European Centre for Guidelines Development (EuroGuiDerm), founded by the European Dermatology Forum (EDF) in cooperation with the Division of Evidence-Based Medicine at Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin. In 2021 and 2022, the German guidelines were revised or developed on topics such as the management of anticoagulation during dermatological procedures, chronic pruritus, contact dermatitis, laser therapy of the skin, psoriasis vulgaris, rosacea, extracorporeal photopheresis, onychomycosis, mucous membrane pemphigoid and prevention of skin cancer. A selection of the most important recommendations and innovations in the guidelines is summarized here.

European guideline (EuroGuiDerm) on atopic eczema - part II: non-systemic treatments and treatment recommendations for special AE patient populations.

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 paediatric 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.

European guideline (EuroGuiDerm) on atopic eczema: part I - systemic therapy.

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 paediatric, adolescent, pregnant and breastfeeding patients.

Impact of off-label use regulations on patient care in dermatology - a prospective study of cost-coverage applications filed by tertiary dermatology clinics throughout Germany.

BACKGROUND: In dermatology, a medical speciality with a relatively high number of rare diseases, physicians often have to resort to off-label treatment options. To avoid claims, physicians in Germany can file a cost-coverage request (off-label application, OL-A). OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to investigate the extent to which the current regulations affect patient care. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Prospective cohort study among tertiary dermatology clinics throughout Germany, consecutively including OL-As (05/2019-09/2020) and assessing the follow-up correspondence. We modelled regressions to assess factors associated with cost-coverage decisions and the time needed by health insurers to process the OL-As. RESULTS: Thirteen clinics provided data on 121 OL-As, two of which applied for on-label treatments. Of the remaining 119 OL-As, 70 (58.8%) were immediately approved and 44 (37.0%) rejected. Including cases with one or more appeals, 87 of 119 OL-As (73.1%) were finally approved and 26 (21.9%) rejected. There was an association of the final approval rate with (1) the class of medication/treatment, with approval rates being significantly lower for JAK inhibitors than for biologics (OR 0.16, 95%-CI: 0.03-0.82); (2) German state, with approval rates being lower in eastern than in western states (OR 0.30, 95%-CI 0.12-0.76); and (3) cost of the intervention (no linear trend). However, none of these predictors was significant in our multiple logistic regression models. The median health insurer's processing time (first response) was 29 days (IQR 22-38). Our analyses showed no evidence of an association with the predictors we assessed. In cases approved, the median time from the decision to file an OL-A to the actual initiation of the treatment was 65.5 days (IQR 51-92). CONCLUSIONS: Our study points to substantial delays and inequalities in the provision of timely health care for dermatological patients with rare diseases, often involving treatments for which there is no adequate approved therapy.

[Current dermatology guidelines in Germany and Europe : A selection of clinically relevant recommendations]. / Aktuelle dermatologische Leitlinien in Deutschland und Europa : Eine praxisorientierte Übersicht ausgewählter Empfehlungen.

Clinical practice guidelines are systematically developed decision aids for specific medical conditions. In Germany, national dermatology guidelines are developed chiefly under the aegis of the German Dermatological Society in collaboration with the Professional Association of German Dermatologists. European and international dermatological guidelines also exist and are developed by a range of organisations, such as the European Centre for Guidelines Development, which was founded by the European Dermatology Forum in 2018. In the years 2019 and 2020, new or updated German national guidelines were published on topics such as pathological scars (hypertrophic scars and keloids), cutaneous lupus erythematosus, pyoderma grangrenosum, anal pruritus, anal eczema, anal canal and anal rim carcinomas, as well as the prevention of HPV-associated neoplasms through vaccination, syphilis and the systemic treatment of neurodermitis. A new European guideline on lichen planus closes a gap in the spectrum of guidelines available in Germany. Key recommendations and relevant changes in the guidelines are presented in this article.

EuroGuiDerm Guideline on the systemic treatment of Psoriasis vulgaris - Part 2: specific clinical and comorbid situations.

This evidence- and consensus-based guideline on the treatment of psoriasis vulgaris was developed following the EuroGuiDerm Guideline and Consensus Statement Development Manual. The second part of the guideline provides guidance for specific clinical and comorbid situations such as treating psoriasis vulgaris patient with concomitant psoriatic arthritis, concomitant inflammatory bowel disease, a history of malignancies or a history of depression or suicidal ideation. It further holds recommendations for concomitant diabetes, viral hepatitis, disease affecting the heart or the kidneys as well as concomitant neurological disease. Advice on how to screen for tuberculosis and recommendations on how to manage patients with a positive tuberculosis test result are given. It further covers treatment for pregnant women or patients with a wish for a child in the near future. Information on vaccination, immunogenicity and systemic treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic is also provided.

Immunogenicity of biologic therapies in psoriasis: Myths, facts and a suggested approach.

With biologic drugs dominating the therapeutic space for severe immune-mediated inflammatory disease, it is critical for clinicians to be familiar with the concept of drug immunogenicity, with the potential for our patients to develop antidrug antibodies (ADA) of clinical relevance. Whilst there are clear differences between different therapeutic biologics in terms of reported ADA rates, there is no accepted dermatology guideline or grouping of drugs by risk of clinically relevant ADA, nor a consensus on approach to ADA management. This is partly because making valid comparisons of immunogenicity across drugs is fundamentally flawed: the differing types of ADA assay, trial design and included patient population - as well as the molecular structure of the biologic molecules themselves - are all highly influential on reported ADA prevalence and impact on clinical response. Therefore, the first part of this article aims to give an overview of ADA that also clarifies common misconceptions on the subject, whilst the second part of this article outlines Phase III immunogenicity data on commonly used biologics for psoriasis, the most common dermatological indication. Based on this, and acknowledging current limitations in available evidence, we propose a working categorization of biologics together with a broad approach to management: Group 1 - biologics with higher risk of clinically relevant ADA; Group 2 - biologics with lower risk of clinically relevant ADA; and Group 3 - biologics with no established risk of clinically relevant ADA. However, these groupings represent a working concept only; more research is required, using comparable ADA assays and consistent reporting of related outcomes. Finally, there is an urgent need for better characterization of individuals at particular risk of developing ADA to inform future clinical decision-making.

EuroGuiDerm Guideline on the systemic treatment of Psoriasis vulgaris - Part 1: treatment and monitoring recommendations.

This evidence- and consensus-based guideline on the treatment of psoriasis vulgaris was developed following the EuroGuiDerm Guideline and Consensus Statement Development Manual. The first part of the guideline includes general information on the scope and purpose, health questions covered, target users and strength/limitations of the guideline. Suggestions for disease severity grading and treatment goals are provided. It presents the general treatment recommendations as well as detailed management and monitoring recommendations for the individual drugs. The treatment options discussed in this guideline are as follows: acitretin, ciclosporin, fumarates, methotrexate, adalimumab, apremilast, brodalumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, guselkumab, infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, secukinumab, tildrakizumab and ustekinumab.

European S1 guidelines on the management of lichen planus: a cooperation of the European Dermatology Forum with the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Lichen planus (LP) is a chronic inflammatory and immune-mediated disease that affects the skin, hair, nails and mucous membranes. Although there is a broad clinical spectrum of lichen planus manifestations, the skin and oral cavity remain the major sites of involvement. A group of European dermatologists with a long-standing interest and expertise in lichen planus has sought to define therapeutic guidelines for the management of patients with LP. The clinical features, diagnosis and possible medications that clinicians can use, in order to control the disease, will be reviewed in this manuscript. The revised final version of the lichen planus guideline was passed on to the European Dermatology Forum (EDF) for a final consensus with the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV).

Comparison of guidelines for the management of patients with high-risk and advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma - a systematic review.

The management of high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) can be a challenge as evidence from high quality clinical trials is rare. Guideline developers are challenged to provide practical and useful guidance for clinicians even in the absence of good evidence. In order to compare treatment recommendations for high-risk and advanced cSCC among national and international guidelines and to extract the most precise guidance provided, a systematic search was carried out in guideline databases Medline and Embase with a cutoff of 4 March 2019. Treatment recommendations for predefined clinical scenarios were extracted from selected guidelines and compared qualitatively. Five guidelines published from 2015 to 2018 were included. Excision of high-risk tumours with margin assessment was recommended in all guidelines. A safety margin of at least 6 mm was suggested in four guidelines. There was no clear recommendation to perform a sentinel lymph node biopsy in any guideline. Lymph node dissection was uniformly recommended in the presence of nodal disease. Treatment for metastatic cSCC was poorly characterized and restricted to the use of chemotherapy and epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors. Recommendations for the management of high-risk and advanced cSCC were limited. We propose that guidelines should be updated to reflect recent advances in checkpoint blockade for metastatic cSCC.

[Dermatosurgery in the age of novel oral anticoagulants/direct oral anticoagulants]. / Dermatochirurgie im Zeitalter der neuen oralen Antikoagulanzien/direkten oralen Antikoagulanzien.

Current guidelines generally recommend continuation of blood thinning drugs in dermatologic surgery and the previously used "bridging" with subcutaneous or intravenous heparin is obsolete. While the guidelines are increasingly implemented in daily practice, there is still uncertainty concerning the use of the novel direct oral anticoagulants (NOAC = DOAC). In this review, we analyze current developments and formulate concise recommendations for continuation during skin surgery under consideration of individual risk.

Efficacy and safety of systemic treatments in psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review, meta-analysis and GRADE evaluation.

Twenty per cent of patients with plaque psoriasis also have psoriatic arthritis - a disease affecting joints and entheses. Different treatment options exist but currently no succinct systematic overview exists. A systematic review of approved systemic treatments for psoriatic arthritis was conducted. We systematically searched in three databases (last update September 2017). Data were extracted for ACR20/50, HAQ-DI, SF-36 and adverse/serious adverse events after 16-24 weeks. We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE. Twenty trials were included. Three trials compared two active substances. Results for ACR20 were infliximab + methotrexate vs. methotrexate: RR 1.40 (95% CI 1.07-1.84) very low quality evidence; ixekizumab Q2W vs. adalimumab Q2W: RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.86-1.36) very low quality, leflunomide vs. methotrexate: RR 1.01, (95% CI 0.84-1.21) low quality. Eighteen drug vs. placebo comparisons were included. For ACR20/50, HAQ-DI and SF-36, the active treatment was efficacious and the quality of the evidence was mostly moderate to low (15 of 18 comparisons). The quality of evidence for (serious) adverse events was mostly low; differences were rare. In three placebo-controlled comparisons, leflunomide, MTX and sulfasalazine failed to show statistical superiority for ACR. Besides the established treatment of anti-TNF antibodies and ustekinumab for psoriatic arthritis, the newer treatment options of IL17 antibodies and apremilast are also effective for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis. Based on just one comparative trial and one drug each, the new class of anti-IL 17 antibodies appears to be equally effective as the group of anti-TNF antibodies; for apremilast, this is yet unclear.