Global Guidelines in Dermatology Mapping Project (GUIDEMAP): a scoping review of dermatology clinical practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) play a critical role in standardizing and improving treatment outcomes based on the available evidence. It is unclear how many CPGs are available globally to assist clinicians in the management of patients with skin disease. OBJECTIVES: To search for and identify CPGs for dermatological conditions with the highest burden globally. METHODS: We adapted a list of 12 dermatological conditions with the highest burden from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study 2019. A systematic literature search was done to identify CPGs published between October 2014 to October 2019. The scoping review was conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework. RESULTS: A total of 226 CPGs were included. Melanoma had the greatest representation in the CPGs, followed by dermatitis and psoriasis. Skin cancers had a relatively high CPG representation but with lower GBD disease burden ranking. There was an uneven distribution by geographical region, with resource-poor settings being under-represented. The skin disease categories of the CPGs correlated weakly with the GBD disability-adjusted life-years metrics. Eighty-nine CPGs did not have funding disclosures and 34 CPGs were behind a paywall. CONCLUSIONS: The global production of dermatology CPGs showed wide variation in geographical representation, article accessibility and reporting of funding. The number of skin disease CPGs were not commensurate with its disease burden. Future work will critically appraise the methodology and quality of dermatology CPGs and lead to the production of an accessible online resource summarizing these findings.

Identifying and appraising patient-reported outcome measures on treatment satisfaction in acne: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: After dermatitis, acne is the next skin disease to contribute most to the burden of skin diseases worldwide. Recently, seven core outcome domains have been identified, which together form an Acne Core Outcome Set (ACORN). One of these was satisfaction with acne treatment. OBJECTIVES: To identify studies that described the development of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS), evaluated one or more measurement properties of a PROM, or evaluated the interpretability of a PROM in patients with acne regarding treatment satisfaction. METHODS: The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) search strategy for identifying PROMS on acne treatment satisfaction was used. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare, PsycINFO and Academic Search premier (June 2020). Study selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality according to COSMIN guidance were carried out independently by two authors. RESULTS: Only one study could be included, describing the development of a treatment satisfaction measure in patients with acne. The development was assessed as inadequate and data on measurement properties were lacking. Additionally, we found 188 studies reporting treatment satisfaction solely as an outcome, using a wide variety of methods, none of them standardized or validated. CONCLUSIONS: We could not find a PROM on treatment satisfaction to recommend for a core outcome set in acne. There is an unmet need for a PROM on treatment satisfaction in acne that is robustly developed, designed and validated.

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.

Interventions for rosacea based on the phenotype approach: an updated systematic review including GRADE assessments.

BACKGROUND: Rosacea is a common chronic facial dermatosis. Classification of rosacea has evolved from subtyping to phenotyping. OBJECTIVES: To update our systematic review on interventions for rosacea. METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index and ongoing trials registers (March 2018) for randomized controlled trials. Study selection, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment and analyses were carried out independently by two authors. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) was used to assess certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We included 152 studies (46 were new), comprising 20 944 participants. Topical interventions included brimonidine, oxymetazoline, metronidazole, azelaic acid, ivermectin and other topical treatments. Systemic interventions included oral antibiotics, combinations with topical treatments or other systemic treatments. Several studies evaluated laser or light-based treatment. We present the most current evidence for rosacea management based on a phenotype-led approach. CONCLUSIONS: For reducing temporarily persistent erythema there was high-certainty evidence for topical brimonidine and moderate certainty for topical oxymetazoline; for erythema and mainly telangiectasia there was low-to-moderate-certainty evidence for laser and intense pulsed light therapy. For reducing papules/pustules there was high-certainty evidence for topical azelaic acid and topical ivermectin; moderate-to-high-certainty evidence for doxycycline 40 mg modified release (MR) and isotretinoin; and moderate-certainty evidence for topical metronidazole, and topical minocycline and oral minocycline being equally effective as doxycycline 40 mg MR. There was low-certainty evidence for tetracycline and low-dose minocycline. For ocular rosacea, there was moderate-certainty evidence that oral omega-3 fatty acids were effective and low-certainty evidence for ciclosporin ophthalmic emulsion and doxycycline.

Laser treatment of congenital melanocytic naevi: a systematic review.

Recent studies on congenital melanocytic naevi (CMN) indicate a lower risk of melanoma than has been previously assumed. As a result, the treatment paradigm in CMN has shifted from complete removal to cosmetically acceptable, less invasive treatment options, such as laser treatment. Our objective was to review systematically the efficacy and safety of laser therapy for CMN. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and PubMed. We rated the quality of evidence with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Twenty-four eligible studies (three nonrandomized controlled studies; 21 case series) with 434 patients were included; the majority were of poor quality). Twenty different laser modalities or combinations were evaluated. Overall, the Q-switched laser was used most frequently, although large or giant CMN were generally treated with an ablative laser. Owing to heterogeneity between studies, comparison between laser modalities was hampered and statistical analysis was precluded. Lasers in CMN showed rather good results (albeit with very low-quality evidence) for clearing of hyperpigmentation in the short term. Outcome measures varied widely, patient satisfaction was rarely measured and high incidences of scarring, repigmentation and complications were reported. No malignant change was seen. While most studies report short-term improvement of CMN after laser therapy, there is no high-quality evidence for the efficacy and safety of laser modalities in CMN in the long term. Future research should focus on well-conducted and well-reported prospective studies on different laser modalities for CMN, with the use of recognized and validated outcome measures.

AGREE II assessments of recent acne treatment guidelines: how well do they reveal trustworthiness as defined by the U.S. Institute of Medicine criteria?

BACKGROUND: Up-to-date, trustworthy guidelines are a widely relied upon means of promoting excellent patient care. OBJECTIVES: To determine the quality of recently published acne treatment guidelines by utilizing the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II Reporting Checklist, the U.S. Institute of Medicine's (IOM) criteria of trustworthiness, the red flags of Lenzer et al. and CheckUp. METHODS: Systematic searches were conducted in bibliographic databases, guideline depositories and using Google to identify acne treatment guidelines published since 2013. Six assessors independently scored each guideline using the AGREE II Reporting Checklist. Guidelines were concomitantly assessed for trustworthiness using the IOM criteria and for the red flags of Lenzer et al., indicative of potential bias. Updates were screened using CheckUp. RESULTS: Eight guidelines were identified, two of which were updates. Lowest scoring AGREE II domains across all guidelines were applicability (six poor, one fair, one average) and rigour (four poor, one fair, three average). Two of the three highest-scoring guidelines were developed using AGREE II. No guideline fully met each IOM criterion and all raised at least one red flag indicative of potential bias. One updated guideline did not address seven of 16 items on CheckUp and the other did not address four. Patient involvement in guideline development was minimal. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the AGREE II instrument during guideline development did not have as great an effect on guideline quality as might be expected. There is considerable room for improvement in acne treatment guidelines in order to satisfy the IOM trustworthiness criteria and avoid bias.

Emollients and moisturizers for eczema: abridged Cochrane systematic review including GRADE assessments.

Eczema is a chronic inflammatory skin disorder with considerable impact on quality of life. Emollients or moisturizers are widely recommended, but are these effective and safe? We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Skin Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, the GREAT database and five trial registers to December 2015. We included 77 RCTs with 6603 participants. Seven studies (9%) were at low risk of bias, 34 (44%) had unclear risk and 36 (47%) were at high risk. The quality of the evidence was mainly low or moderate for the prespecified outcomes. The most important comparison, 'moisturizer vs. no moisturizer', showed improved Scoring Atopic Dermatitis values in the moisturizer group compared with no moisturizer [mean difference -2·42, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4·55 to -0·28], but did not meet the minimal important difference of 8·7. Fewer flares were seen (risk ratio 0·40, 95% CI 0·23-0·70) and the rate of flares was reduced (hazard ratio 3·74, 95% CI 1·86-7·50). The groups applying moisturizer used less topical corticosteroids over 6-8 weeks (mean difference -9·30 g, 95% CI 15·3 to -3·27). Glycyrrhetinic acid-, urea- and glycerol-containing creams worked better than their controls (vehicle, placebo or no moisturizer) according to both participants and physicians. More flares were reported with moisturizer alone than when combined with twice-weekly fluticasone propionate (risk ratio 2·17, 95% CI 1·55-3·11). Adding moisturizers to topical anti-inflammatory treatment was more effective than anti-inflammatory treatment alone and resulted in fewer flares.

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.

Shared decision making and patient decision aids in dermatology.

Shared decision making combines individual patient interests and values with clinical best evidence under the guiding principle of patient autonomy. Patient decision aids can support shared decision making and facilitate decisions that have multiple options with varying outcomes for which patients may attribute different values. Given the variable psychosocial impact of skin disease on individuals and relative uncertainty regarding best treatments and their adherence in many dermatological conditions, informed shared decision making, supported by patient decision aids, should constitute a central component of dermatological care.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on Staphylococcus aureus carriage in psoriasis, acne and rosacea.

Staphylococcus aureus might amplify symptoms in chronic inflammatory skin diseases. This study evaluates skin and mucosal colonization with S. aureus in patients with psoriasis, acne and rosacea. A systematic literature search was conducted. Both odds ratios (OR) for colonization in patients versus controls and the prevalence of colonization in patients are reported. Fifteen articles about psoriasis and 13 about acne (12 having a control group) were included. No study in rosacea met our inclusion criteria. For psoriasis, one study out of three controlled studies showed increased skin colonization (OR 18.86; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 2.20-161.99). Three out of the five studies that reported on nasal colonization showed significant ORs varying from 1.73 (95 % CI 1.16-2.58) to 14.64 (95 % CI 2.82-75.95). For acne one of the three studies that evaluated skin colonization reported a significant OR of 4.16 (95 % CI 1.74-9.94). A relation between nasal colonization and acne was not found. Limitations in study design and low sample sizes should be taken into consideration when interpreting the results. Colonisation with S. aureus seems to be increased in patients with psoriasis. This bacterial species, known for its potential to induce long-lasting inflammation, might be involved in psoriasis pathogenesis. Information on acne is limited. Prospective controlled studies should further investigate the role of S. aureus in chronic inflammatory skin diseases.