Recommendations for rosacea diagnosis, classification and management: update from the global ROSacea COnsensus 2019 panel.

BACKGROUND: A transition from a subtyping to a phenotyping approach in rosacea is underway, allowing individual patient management according to presenting features instead of categorization by predefined subtypes. The ROSacea COnsensus (ROSCO) 2017 recommendations further support this transition and align with guidance from other working groups. OBJECTIVES: To update and extend previous global ROSCO recommendations in line with the latest research and continue supporting uptake of the phenotype approach in rosacea through clinical tool development. METHODS: Nineteen dermatologists and two ophthalmologists used a modified Delphi approach to reach consensus on statements pertaining to critical aspects of rosacea diagnosis, classification and management. Voting was electronic and blinded. RESULTS: Delphi statements on which the panel achieved consensus of ≥ 75% voting 'Agree' or 'Strongly agree' are presented. The panel recommends discussing disease burden with patients during consultations, using four questions to assist conversations. The primary treatment objective should be achievement of complete clearance, owing to previously established clinical benefits for patients. Cutaneous and ocular features are defined. Treatments have been reassessed in line with recent evidence and the prior treatment algorithm updated. Combination therapy is recommended to benefit patients with multiple features. Ongoing monitoring and dialogue should take place between physician and patients, covering defined factors to maximize outcomes. A prototype clinical tool (Rosacea Tracker) and patient case studies have been developed from consensus statements. CONCLUSIONS: The current survey updates previous recommendations as a basis for local guideline development and provides clinical tools to facilitate a phenotype approach in practice and improve rosacea patient management. What's already known about this topic? A transition to a phenotype approach in rosacea is underway and is being recommended by multiple working groups. New research has become available since the previous ROSCO consensus, necessitating an update and extension of recommendations. What does this study add? We offer updated global recommendations for clinical practice that account for recent research, to continue supporting the transition to a phenotype approach in rosacea. We present prototype clinical tools to facilitate use of the phenotype approach in practice and improve management of patients with rosacea.

Updating the diagnosis, classification and assessment of rosacea: recommendations from the global ROSacea COnsensus (ROSCO) panel.

BACKGROUND: Rosacea is currently diagnosed by consensus-defined primary and secondary features and managed by subtype. However, individual features (phenotypes) can span multiple subtypes, which has implications for clinical practice and research. Adopting a phenotype-led approach may facilitate patient-centred management. OBJECTIVES: To advance clinical practice by obtaining international consensus to establish a phenotype-led rosacea diagnosis and classification scheme with global representation. METHODS: Seventeen dermatologists and three ophthalmologists used a modified Delphi approach to reach consensus on statements pertaining to critical aspects of rosacea diagnosis, classification and severity evaluation. All voting was electronic and blinded. RESULTS: Consensus was achieved for transitioning to a phenotype-based approach to rosacea diagnosis and classification. The following two features were independently considered diagnostic for rosacea: (i) persistent, centrofacial erythema associated with periodic intensification; and (ii) phymatous changes. Flushing, telangiectasia, inflammatory lesions and ocular manifestations were not considered to be individually diagnostic. The panel reached agreement on dimensions for phenotype severity measures and established the importance of assessing the patient burden of rosacea. CONCLUSIONS: The panel recommended an approach for diagnosis and classification of rosacea based on disease phenotype.

Rosacea treatment update: recommendations from the global ROSacea COnsensus (ROSCO) panel.

BACKGROUND: Rosacea is currently treated according to subtypes. As this does not adequately address the spectrum of clinical presentation (phenotypes), it has implications for patient management. The ROSacea COnsensus panel was established to address this issue. OBJECTIVES: To incorporate current best treatment evidence with clinical experience from an international expert panel and establish consensus to improve outcomes for patients with rosacea. METHODS: Seventeen dermatologists and three ophthalmologists reached consensus on critical aspects of rosacea treatment and management using a modified Delphi approach. The panel voted on statements using the responses 'strongly disagree', 'disagree', 'agree' or 'strongly agree'. Consensus was defined as ≥ 75% 'agree' or 'strongly agree'. All voting was electronic and blinded. RESULTS: The panel agreed on phenotype-based treatments for signs and symptoms presenting in individuals with rosacea. First-line treatments were identified for individual major features of transient and persistent erythema, inflammatory papules/pustules, telangiectasia and phyma, underpinned by general skincare measures. Multiple features in an individual patient can be simultaneously treated with multiple agents. If treatment is inadequate given appropriate duration, another first-line option or the addition of another first-line agent should be considered. Maintenance treatment depends on treatment modality and patient preferences. Ophthalmological referral for all but the mildest ocular features should be considered. Lid hygiene and artificial tears in addition to medications are used to treat ocular rosacea. CONCLUSIONS: Rosacea diagnosis and treatment should be based on clinical presentation. Consensus was achieved to support this approach for rosacea treatment strategies.

Cutaneous protothecosis on the bilateral wrists of a food handler.

Cutaneous protothecosis is caused by the achlorophyllic algae Prototheca, typically presenting as a localized plaque in immunocompetent individuals. We report a patient with bilateral erythematous plaques and pustules on her forearms, which had initially been treated with steroids for presumed eczema. Histology showed spherical spore-like bodies with internal morula-like septation, which were positive for periodic-acid-Schiff (PAS) staining, consistent with cutaneous protothecosis. Definitive treatment with oral itraconazole resulted in resolution of the lesions.

Papular angiolymphoid hyperplasia and lymphoplasmacytic plaque: a clinical and histological spectrum.

Acral pseudolymphomatous angiokeratoma of children (APACHE) is a rare form of cutaneous pseudolymphoma characterized byangiomatous papules with a predilection for the acral regions of children. Classically, a dense dermal lymphocytic infiltrate composed of both T and B cells is seen in histological specimens, together with prominent vessels lined by plump endothelial cells. Increasing evidence suggests that this condition is neither necessarily acral, pseudolymphomatous, nor angiokeratomatous. It may not always be a pediatric disease. Therefore, the correctness of its nomenclature has been questioned. Herein, we report threecases whose clinical and histological features were consistent with the diagnosis of APACHE. To our knowledge, this is the first report of APACHE from Southeast Asia. We also discuss why we believe "APACHE" to be a misnomer and support "papular angiolymphoid hyperplasia" as a more accurate and encompassing term. In addition, we illustrate a case with significant overlapping features with lymphoplasmacytic plaque in children, suggesting that both entities may exist on a clinical andhistological spectrum.

Epidemiology of post-adolescence acne and adolescence acne in Singapore: a 10-year retrospective and comparative study.

INTRODUCTION: Acne vulgaris commonly affects adolescents. But recent reports suggest a rising prevalence of post-adolescence acne. While there are few reports on post-adolescence acne, there are even fewer reports comparing adolescence acne and post-adolescence. METHODS: Epidemiological data of adolescence (<25 years) and post-adolescence (≥25 years) acne patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2013 in a tertiary dermatology referral centre was analysed. From the pool of patients seen in 2010, 80 adolescence and 84 post-adolescence acne patients' epidemiological characteristics and treatment responses were analysed. RESULTS: During the 10-year study period, there was an increase in the number and proportion of acne cases. In 2004, 4447 (5.77%) of all new diagnoses made were of acne vulgaris. The proportion rose to 5723 (8.13%) in 2013. There were consistently more female than male acne patients. The proportion of post-adolescent cases remained constant at about 30% of all acne patients seen. Mean age of acne vulgaris patients decreased from 23.1 years in 2004 to 22.6 years in 2013. In the subgroup analysis, there were more males than females with adolescence acne (61.3% vs. 38.8%, P < 0.01) and more females with post-adolescence acne (69.0% vs. 31.0%, P < 0.01). Thirty-four (40.5%) post-adolescence acne patients had acne from adolescence persisting into adulthood. Comedonal acne was more prevalent in the adolescence acne patients (58.8% vs. 40.5%, P = 0.019), whereas cystic acne was more prevalent in post-adolescence patients (18.1% vs. 7.5%, P = 0.044). Systemic retinoids were more often used for treatment in the adolescence acne patients than post-adolescence acne patients (23.8% vs. 10.7%, P = 0.027). CONCLUSION: Acne predominantly affects adolescents but post-adolescence acne is not uncommon. For post-adolescence acne, females predominate over males. Inflammatory and cystic acne tends to be more predominant in post-adolescence acne patients, whereas comedonal acne is more often seen in adolescence acne patients.

Subungual squamous cell carcinoma masquerading as a melanotic macule.

Subungual squamous cell carcinoma is a rare condition. Diagnosis is often delayed because it presents with minimal nail changes and mimics a number of benign nail conditions. We report a 43-year-old Chinese man who presented with a three-year history of an indolent melanotic macule of the fingernail. Histology from a punch biopsy revealed a well-differentiated squamous cell carcinoma. Wide local excision with full thickness skin grafting was performed. Physicians should have a high index of clinical suspicion as early nail biopsy and prompt tumour clearance can preserve joint function.