Ingrown Toenails: A Survey Among Dermatologists on Current Treatments.

BACKGROUND: To date, there is no formal consensus on how to treat ingrown toenails. Despite the risk of causing irreparable damage to the nail, highly invasive procedures are still common. Less-invasive, matrix-directed techniques with shorter downtime and high cure rates exist, but, perhaps because of a lack of awareness, appear not to have been universally adopted. OBJECTIVE: The authors' study sought to generate data on common practices in the treatment of ingrown toenails. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors developed and conducted an online survey to ask dermatologists/dermatosurgeons how they would proceed in 9 different cases of ingrown toenails based on photographs. RESULTS: The authors received 154 replies. Nonsurgical interventions, including advice on nail care/foot baths/ointments/wraps/padding, were always the most frequently chosen option. Removal of the lateral nail plate followed by chemical partial matricectomy (phenolization) was the most or second-most frequently chosen surgical intervention. The answers were highly heterogeneous, and there was no unanimity based on morphology alone. CONCLUSION: Except for a preference for nonsurgical interventions, the authors could not identify any clear treatment standards. The heterogeneity of treatment approaches suggests the need for a guideline.

S3 Guideline Urticaria. Part 1: Classification and diagnosis of urticaria - German-language adaptation of the international S3 Guideline.

The lifetime prevalence of urticaria, a severe allergic disease, is almost 20%. It not only limits the quality of life of those affected, but also their general performance at work and in their daily activities. This publication is the first section of the Urticaria Guideline. It covers the classification and diagnosis of urticaria, taking into account the major advances in research into its causes, triggering factors and pathomechanisms. It also addresses strategies for the efficient diagnosis of the different subtypes of urticaria. This is crucial for individual, patient-oriented treatment, which is covered in the second part of the guideline, published separately. This German-language guideline was developed according to the criteria of the AWMF on the basis of the international English-language S3 guideline with special consideration of health system characteristics in the German-speaking countries. This first part of the guideline describes the classification of urticaria, distinguishing spontaneously occurring wheals (hives) and angioedema from forms of urticaria with inducible symptoms. Urticaria is defined as sudden onset of wheals, angioedema, or both, but is to be distinguished from conditions in which wheals occur as a short-term symptom, such as anaphylaxis. The diagnosis is based on (a limited number of) laboratory tests, but especially on medical history. In addition, validated instruments are available to measure the severity, activity and course of the disease.

S3 Guideline Urticaria. Part 2: Treatment of urticaria - German-language adaptation of the international S3 guideline.

This publication is the second part of the German-language S3 guideline on urticaria. It covers the management of urticaria and should be used together with Part 1 of the guideline on classification and diagnosis. This publication was prepared according to the criteria of the AWMF on the basis of the international English-language S3 guideline with special consideration of health system conditions in German-speaking countries. Chronic urticaria has a high impact on the quality of life and daily activities of patients. Therefore, if causal factors cannot be eliminated, effective symptomatic treatment is necessary. The recommended first-line treatment is to administer new generation, non-sedating H1 antihistamines. If the standard dose is not sufficiently effective, the dose should be increased up to fourfold. For patients who do not respond to this treatment, the second-line treatment in addition to antihistamines in the treatment algorithm is omalizumab and, if this treatment fails, ciclosporin. Other low-evidence therapeutic agents should only be used if all treatments in the treatment algorithm agreed upon by the guideline group fail. Both the benefit-risk profile and cost should be considered. Corticosteroids are not recommended for long-term treatment due to their inevitable severe side effects.

The international EAACI/GA²LEN/EuroGuiDerm/APAAACI guideline for the definition, classification, diagnosis, and management of urticaria.

This update and revision of the international guideline for urticaria was developed following the methods recommended by Cochrane and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group. It is a joint initiative of the Dermatology Section of the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA²LEN) and its Urticaria and Angioedema Centers of Reference and Excellence (UCAREs and ACAREs), the European Dermatology Forum (EDF; EuroGuiDerm), and the Asia Pacific Association of Allergy, Asthma and Clinical Immunology with the participation of 64 delegates of 50 national and international societies and from 31 countries. The consensus conference was held on 3 December 2020. This guideline was acknowledged and accepted by the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS). Urticaria is a frequent, mast cell-driven disease that presents with wheals, angioedema, or both. The lifetime prevalence for acute urticaria is approximately 20%. Chronic spontaneous or inducible urticaria is disabling, impairs quality of life, and affects performance at work and school. This updated version of the international guideline for urticaria covers the definition and classification of urticaria and outlines expert-guided and evidence-based diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for the different subtypes of urticaria.

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease with either skin or joints manifestations, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. The relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety. SEARCH METHODS: For this update of the living systematic review, we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to October 2021: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults over 18 years with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, compared to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes were: proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90; proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase (8 to 24 weeks after randomisation). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We conducted duplicate study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and analyses. We synthesised data using pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare treatments and rank them according to effectiveness (PASI 90 score) and acceptability (inverse of SAEs). We assessed the certainty of NMA evidence for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons using CINeMA, as very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer treatment hierarchy, from 0% (worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (best for effectiveness or safety). MAIN RESULTS: This update includes an additional 19 studies, taking the total number of included studies to 167, and randomised participants to 58,912, 67.2% men, mainly recruited from hospitals. Average age was 44.5 years, mean PASI score at baseline was 20.4 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most studies were placebo-controlled (57%). We assessed a total of 20 treatments. Most (140) trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). One-third of the studies (57/167) had high risk of bias; 23 unclear risk, and most (87) low risk. Most studies (127/167) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 24 studies did not report a funding source. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than placebo. Anti-IL17 treatment showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 compared to all the interventions, except anti-IL23. Biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23 and anti-TNF alpha showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than the non-biological systemic agents. For reaching PASI 90, the most effective drugs when compared to placebo were (SUCRA rank order, all high-certainty evidence): infliximab (risk ratio (RR) 50.19, 95% CI 20.92 to 120.45), bimekizumab (RR 30.27, 95% CI 25.45 to 36.01), ixekizumab (RR 30.19, 95% CI 25.38 to 35.93), risankizumab (RR 28.75, 95% CI 24.03 to 34.39). Clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar when compared against each other. Bimekizumab, ixekizumab and risankizumab showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than other anti-IL17 drugs (secukinumab and brodalumab) and guselkumab. Infliximab, anti-IL17 drugs (bimekizumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab and brodalumab) and anti-IL23 drugs (risankizumab and guselkumab) except tildrakizumab showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and three anti-TNF alpha agents (adalimumab, certolizumab and etanercept). Ustekinumab was superior to certolizumab; adalimumab and ustekinumab were superior to etanercept. No significant difference was shown between apremilast and two non-biological drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. The risk of SAEs was significantly lower for participants on methotrexate compared with most of the interventions. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low- to moderate-certainty for all the comparisons (except methotrexate versus placebo, which was high-certainty). The findings therefore have to be viewed with caution. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1), the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review shows that, compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation), and is not sufficient for evaluating longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean 44.5 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20.4 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the safety evidence for most interventions was low to moderate quality. More randomised trials directly comparing active agents are needed, and these should include systematic subgroup analyses (sex, age, ethnicity, comorbidities, psoriatic arthritis). To provide long-term information on the safety of treatments included in this review, an evaluation of non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports from regulatory agencies is needed. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Perioperative management of antithrombotic drugs in skin surgery - A survey of dermatologists in Germany.

BACKGROUND: We identified substantial heterogeneity in the perioperative management of antithrombotic drugs in skin surgery in Germany in 2012 and 2017 in two cross-sectional surveys. The first national guideline on this subject was published in 2014 and updated in 2021. We sought to identify whether the management of these drugs had changed. METHODS: We sent a paper-based survey to 1115 dermatologists throughout Germany asking them about their perioperative management of antithrombotic drugs in skin surgery, as well as their familiarity with the guideline. RESULTS: We received responses from 65 hospital- and 202 office-based dermatologists. Most dermatologists reported continuing antithrombotic drugs in their patients when performing minor surgeries. A notable proportion of dermatologists reported discontinuing phenprocoumon treatment perioperatively and bridging patients with heparin when performing more invasive surgeries. Continuation was less common during combination therapies. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of physicians in Germany who reported managing antithrombotic drugs during skin surgery in ways that are in concordance with the national guideline has increased since 2012. However, continuing antithrombotic drugs during large excisions and sentinel lymph node biopsies, abstaining from bridging patients on phenprocoumon with heparin, and continuing antithrombotic combination therapies perioperatively need to be further encouraged, especially among office-based dermatologists.

Perioperatives Management von Antithrombotika in der Dermatochirurgie - Eine Umfrage unter Dermatologen in Deutschland.

Hintergrund und Zielsetzung: Wir haben in zwei Querschnittsumfragen in den Jahren 2012 und 2017 eine erhebliche Heterogenität im perioperativen Management von Antithrombotika unter Dermatologen in Deutschland festgestellt. Die erste deutsche Leitlinie zu diesem Thema wurde 2014 veröffentlicht und im Jahr 2021 aktualisiert. Wir wollten herausfinden, wie sich der Umgang mit Antithrombotika verändert hat. Methodik: Wir haben eine papierbasierte Umfrage an 1115 Dermatologen in ganz Deutschland versandt und sie zu ihrem perioperativen Management von Antithrombotika bei Operationen an der Haut sowie zu ihrer Vertrautheit mit der Leitlinie befragt. Ergebnisse: Wir erhielten Antworten von 65 stationär tätigen und 202 niedergelassenen Dermatologen. Die meisten Dermatologen gaben an, Antithrombotika bei kleineren Operationen fortzuführen. Ein nennenswerter Anteil der Dermatologen gab an, bei invasiveren Operationen die Behandlung mit Phenprocoumon perioperativ zu pausieren und mit Heparin zu überbrücken. Bei Kombinationstherapien war das Fortführen der Behandlung weniger verbreitet. Schlussfolgerungen: Der Anteil der Dermatologen in Deutschland, die angaben, Antithrombotika bei Operationen an der Haut leitlinienkonform zu managen, ist seit 2012 gestiegen. Das Fortführen von Antithrombotika bei großen Exzisionen und Wächterlymphknotenexstirpationen, der Verzicht auf die Überbrückung von Phenprocoumon mit Heparin und das perioperative Fortführen antithrombotischer Kombinationstherapien müssen jedoch weiterhin propagiert werden, insbesondere unter niedergelassenen Dermatologen.

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease for which some people have a genetic predisposition. The condition manifests in inflammatory effects on either the skin or joints, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of the different systemic treatments in psoriasis against placebo. However, the relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety. SEARCH METHODS: For this living systematic review we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to September 2020: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched two trials registers to the same date. We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for further references to eligible RCTs. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults (over 18 years of age) with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis whose skin had been clinically diagnosed with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, in comparison to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes of this review were: the proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 at induction phase (from 8 to 24 weeks after the randomisation), and the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase. We did not evaluate differences in specific adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Several groups of two review authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and analyses. We synthesised the data using pair-wise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the treatments of interest and rank them according to their effectiveness (as measured by the PASI 90 score) and acceptability (the inverse of serious adverse events). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons, according to CINeMA, as either very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer on treatment hierarchy: 0% (treatment is the worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (treatment is the best for effectiveness or safety). MAIN RESULTS: We included 158 studies (18 new studies for the update) in our review (57,831 randomised participants, 67.2% men, mainly recruited from hospitals). The overall average age was 45 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo-controlled (58%), 30% were head-to-head studies, and 11% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. We have assessed a total of 20 treatments. In all, 133 trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). All but two of the outcomes included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation). We assessed many studies (53/158) as being at high risk of bias; 25 were at an unclear risk, and 80 at low risk. Most studies (123/158) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 22 studies did not report their source of funding. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all of the interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) were significantly more effective than placebo in reaching PASI 90. At class level, in reaching PASI 90, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the non-biological systemic agents. At drug level, infliximab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, risankizumab and guselkumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and three anti-TNF alpha agents: adalimumab, certolizumab, and etanercept. Ustekinumab and adalimumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than etanercept; ustekinumab was more effective than certolizumab, and the clinical effectiveness of ustekinumab and adalimumab was similar. There was no significant difference between tofacitinib or apremilast and three non-biological drugs: fumaric acid esters (FAEs), ciclosporin and methotrexate. Network meta-analysis also showed that infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, secukinumab, guselkumab, and brodalumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in reaching PASI 90. The clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar, except for ixekizumab which had a better chance of reaching PASI 90 compared with secukinumab, guselkumab and brodalumab. The clinical effectiveness of these seven drugs was: infliximab (versus placebo): risk ratio (RR) 50.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 20.96 to 120.67, SUCRA = 93.6; high-certainty evidence; ixekizumab (versus placebo): RR 32.48, 95% CI 27.13 to 38.87; SUCRA = 90.5; high-certainty evidence; risankizumab (versus placebo): RR 28.76, 95% CI 23.96 to 34.54; SUCRA = 84.6; high-certainty evidence; bimekizumab (versus placebo): RR 58.64, 95% CI 3.72 to 923.86; SUCRA = 81.4; high-certainty evidence; secukinumab (versus placebo): RR 25.79, 95% CI 21.61 to 30.78; SUCRA = 76.2; high-certainty evidence; guselkumab (versus placebo): RR 25.52, 95% CI 21.25 to 30.64; SUCRA = 75; high-certainty evidence; and brodalumab (versus placebo): RR 23.55, 95% CI 19.48 to 28.48; SUCRA = 68.4; moderate-certainty evidence. Conservative interpretation is warranted for the results for bimekizumab (as well as mirikizumab, tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, and methotrexate), as these drugs, in the NMA, have been evaluated in few trials. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to moderate certainty for all the comparisons. Thus, the results have to be viewed with caution and we cannot be sure of the ranking. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1) the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review shows that compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, secukinumab, guselkumab and brodalumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficient for evaluation of longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 45 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. Another major concern is that short-term trials provide scanty and sometimes poorly-reported safety data and thus do not provide useful evidence to create a reliable risk profile of treatments. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the evidence for all the interventions was of low to moderate quality. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will also be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies. In terms of future research, randomised trials directly comparing active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between non-biological systemic agents and small molecules, and between biological agents (anti-IL17 versus anti-IL23, anti-IL23 versus anti-IL12/23, anti-TNF alpha versus anti-IL12/23). Future trials should also undertake systematic subgroup analyses (e.g. assessing biological-naïve participants, baseline psoriasis severity, presence of psoriatic arthritis, etc.). Finally, outcome measure harmonisation is needed in psoriasis trials, and researchers should look at the medium- and long-term benefit and safety of the interventions and the comparative safety of different agents. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Risk of complications due to antithrombotic agents in cutaneous surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine the risk of complications during cutaneous surgery for the perioperative discontinuation in comparison to the continuation of antithrombotic agents and the bridging of vitamin K antagonists with heparin in comparison to their continuation. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review, searching three databases for eligible studies. Methods followed the Cochrane Handbook. We used RoB 2 and ROBINS-I to assess risk of bias. The quality of evidence was judged (GRADE). Fixed-effect meta-analyses were performed. RESULTS: Two randomized-controlled trials and 19 prospective cohort studies were included. It is uncertain whether, compared to its discontinuation, continuing acetylsalicylic acid (risk difference (RD) 0.004, 95 % confidence interval (CI) -0.003 to 0.019) perioperatively increases the risk of significant postoperative bleedings (SPB). Compared to its discontinuation, continuing phenprocoumon perioperatively may increase the risk of SPB (RD 0.02, 95 % CI 0.00 to 0.05). Bridging phenprocoumon with heparin perioperatively may increase the risk of SPB when compared to its continuation (RD 0.07, 95 % CI 0.01 to 0.22). No evidence was found regarding bleeding risks for direct oral anticoagulants. CONCLUSIONS: No clear indications of major risks of bleedings when continuing antithrombotic agents during minor skin surgeries were identified. However, the quality of evidence was very low.

Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease for which some people have a genetic predisposition. The condition manifests in inflammatory effects on either the skin or joints, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of the different systemic treatments in psoriasis against placebo. However, the relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis. This is the baseline update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2017, in preparation for this Cochrane Review becoming a living systematic review. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of conventional systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety. SEARCH METHODS: We updated our research using the following databases to January 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and the conference proceedings of a number of dermatology meetings. We also searched five trials registers and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) reports (until June 2019). We checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant RCTs. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults (over 18 years of age) with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis whose skin had been clinically diagnosed with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, in comparison to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes of this review were: the proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 at induction phase (from 8 to 24 weeks after the randomisation), and the proportion of participants with serious adverse effects (SAEs) at induction phase. We did not evaluate differences in specific adverse effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Several groups of two review authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and analyses. We synthesised the data using pair-wise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the treatments of interest and rank them according to their effectiveness (as measured by the PASI 90 score) and acceptability (the inverse of serious adverse effects). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for the two primary outcomes, according to GRADE, as either very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. MAIN RESULTS: We included 140 studies (31 new studies for the update) in our review (51,749 randomised participants, 68% men, mainly recruited from hospitals). The overall average age was 45 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo-controlled (59%), 30% were head-to-head studies, and 11% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. We have assessed a total of 19 treatments. In all, 117 trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). All but two of the outcomes included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation). We assessed many studies (57/140) as being at high risk of bias; 42 were at an unclear risk, and 41 at low risk. Most studies (107/140) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 22 studies did not report the source of funding. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all of the interventions (conventional systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) were significantly more effective than placebo in terms of reaching PASI 90. At class level, in terms of reaching PASI 90, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the conventional systemic agents. At drug level, in terms of reaching PASI 90, infliximab, all of the anti-IL17 drugs (ixekizumab, secukinumab, bimekizumab and brodalumab) and the anti-IL23 drugs (risankizumab and guselkumab, but not tildrakizumab) were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and 3 anti-TNF alpha agents: adalimumab, certolizumab and etanercept. Adalimumab and ustekinumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than certolizumab and etanercept. There was no significant difference between tofacitinib or apremilast and between two conventional drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. Network meta-analysis also showed that infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, guselkumab, secukinumab and brodalumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in reaching PASI 90. The clinical effectiveness for these seven drugs was similar: infliximab (versus placebo): risk ratio (RR) 29.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 19.94 to 43.70, Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) = 88.5; moderate-certainty evidence; ixekizumab (versus placebo): RR 28.12, 95% CI 23.17 to 34.12, SUCRA = 88.3, moderate-certainty evidence; risankizumab (versus placebo): RR 27.67, 95% CI 22.86 to 33.49, SUCRA = 87.5, high-certainty evidence; bimekizumab (versus placebo): RR 58.64, 95% CI 3.72 to 923.86, SUCRA = 83.5, low-certainty evidence; guselkumab (versus placebo): RR 25.84, 95% CI 20.90 to 31.95; SUCRA = 81; moderate-certainty evidence; secukinumab (versus placebo): RR 23.97, 95% CI 20.03 to 28.70, SUCRA = 75.4; high-certainty evidence; and brodalumab (versus placebo): RR 21.96, 95% CI 18.17 to 26.53, SUCRA = 68.7; moderate-certainty evidence. Conservative interpretation is warranted for the results for bimekizumab (as well as tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, and methotrexate), as these drugs, in the NMA, have been evaluated in few trials. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to very low certainty for just under half of the treatment estimates in total, and moderate for the others. Thus, the results have to be viewed with caution and we cannot be sure of the ranking. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1) the results were very similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review shows that compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, guselkumab, secukinumab and brodalumab were the best choices for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence (low-certainty evidence for bimekizumab). This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficient for evaluation of longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 45 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. Another major concern is that short-term trials provide scanty and sometimes poorly-reported safety data and thus do not provide useful evidence to create a reliable risk profile of treatments. Indeed, we found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, but the evidence for all the interventions was of very low to moderate quality. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will also be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies. In terms of future research, randomised trials comparing directly active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between conventional systemic and small molecules, and between biological agents (anti-IL17 versus anti-IL23, anti-IL23 versus anti-IL12/23, anti-TNF alpha versus anti-IL12/23). Future trials should also undertake systematic subgroup analyses (e.g. assessing biological-naïve participants, baseline psoriasis severity, presence of psoriatic arthritis, etc.). Finally, outcome measure harmonisation is needed in psoriasis trials, and researchers should look at the medium- and long-term benefit and safety of the interventions and the comparative safety of different agents. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.

Time until onset of action when treating psoriatic arthritis: meta-analysis and novel approach of generating confidence intervals.

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is associated with progressive joint destruction and reduced quality of life. The time until a drug treatment starts to show an effect (TOA) is important for preventing joint destruction. The objective was to assess the time until onset of action of drugs when treating PsA. A systematic review of PsA drug trials was performed. Outcomes were: time until 25% of patients (TOA) reached (1) ≥ 20%, (2) ≥ 50% improvement in modified American College of Rheumatology response criteria (ACR), (3) ≥ 75% reduction in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI75). 95% confidence intervals were calculated extracting data from graphs using a novel method. Meta-analysis was conducted. Two head-to-head trials show no difference between ixekizumab and adalimumab or adalimumab and tofacitinib for TOA-ACR outcomes. For PASI75, ixekizumab had a faster onset than adalimumab. Infliximab plus MTX was faster than MTX alone. Pooled results from 32 study arms for TOA-ACR20 (week [95% CI]) are: < 2 weeks: infliximab (1.18 [0.72-1.65]), ixekizumab (1.04 [0.80-1.28]), tofacitinib (10 mg 1.56 [1.14-1.98]); ≤ 4 weeks: adalimumab (1.95 [1.35-2.55]), secukinumab (75 mg 1.89 [0.16-3.62], 150 mg 2.13 [1.34-2.91], 300 mg 2.26 [1.75-2.76]), tofacitinib (5 mg 2.20 [1.41-2.99]); 4 + weeks: apremilast, ustekinumab. For TOA-ACR50, all pooled point estimates are > 4 weeks. For TOA-PASI75, the range is between 2.24 [1.65-2.84] for ixekizumab and 6.03 [3.76-8.29] for adalimumab. Indirect, mixed comparison suggest a faster onset of infliximab, ixekizumab and tofacitinib compared to apremilast, methotrexate and ustekinumab for ACR20, not ACR50. For PASI75, ixekizumab is faster than adalimumab.

Chronic inducible urticaria: A systematic review of treatment options.

BACKGROUND: Chronic inducible urticaria (CindU) is a condition characterized by the appearance of recurrent wheals, angioedema, or both as a response to specific and reproducible triggers. OBJECTIVE: We sought to systematically assess evidence on the efficacy and safety of treatment options for CindU. Results were used to inform the 2017 update of "The EAACI/GA2LEN/EDF/WAO guideline for the definition, classification, diagnosis and management of urticaria." METHODS: Randomized controlled trials and controlled intervention studies were searched systematically in various databases. Included studies were evaluated with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Where possible, results from single studies were meta-analyzed, applying the Mantel-Haenszel approach by using a random-effects model (Der Simonian-Laird). RESULTS: We identified 30 studies that included patients with cold urticaria, symptomatic dermographism, delayed-pressure urticaria, or cholinergic urticaria. No studies on other forms of CindU were eligible. Risk of bias was often rated as unclear or high. Overall, second-generation antihistamines were more effective than placebo, and available data indicate that updosing might be effective. Omalizumab proved effective in patients with symptomatic dermographism, who did not respond to antihistamines. Detailed results are given for each type of CindU. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence is limited by small samples, heterogeneous efficacy outcomes, and poor reporting quality in many of the included studies. The findings are congruent with the suggested stepwise approach to treating CindUs. However, the data do not allow for drawing specific conclusions for specific subtypes of CindU.

Therapeutic patient education and self-management support for patients with psoriasis - a systematic review.

Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory skin condition. Patient education may be one option to improve adherence and coping. The aim of this systematic review is to identify studies evaluating educational interventions for psoriasis patients. The review was conducted following the methods recommended by Cochrane. We searched seven databases, one trial register and three grey literature repositories. Data screening and extraction was performed independently by two reviewers. Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0, ROBINS-I, and NIH tools were used. Additionally, the APEASE criteria were applied. We evaluated 16 studies. Two randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluated patient-practitioner or patient-nurse one-to-one interventions, one RCT assessed a web-based intervention and three RCTs reported group interventions taking place frequently; one RCT reported one-off group sessions. The remaining RCT compared the healthcare professionals involved. The risk of bias rating ranged from "some concerns" to "high". Three RCTs found an effect. We included four controlled clinical trials (CCTs), one of which had an effect. One of the four before-and-after-studies warrants further investigation. Despite similarities in delivery mode across the interventions, patients who were eligible and settings in which interventions were delivered differed. Interventions that included an individual (one-to-one) session appeared to be successful. Two interventions seem suitable for adaptation using APEASE: the topical treatment program and motivational interviewing after climate therapy.

Adjuvant treatment of anogenital warts with systemic interferon: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Interferons are natural messenger proteins that are used to treat various disease entities. Due to their immunomodulating, antiviral and antiproliferative effects, the systemic administration of interferons after ablative treatment for anogenital warts (AGWs) has been advocated to increase clearance and decrease recurrence rates. However, studies investigating the efficacy of adjuvant systemic interferon have yielded inconsistent results. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to comprehensively assess and evaluate the available evidence from randomised controlled trials. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase and MEDLINE. Available data were classified according to the interferon type and dosage. Pooled effect estimates were calculated for predefined outcomes. The Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool was used to assess the included trials and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to evaluate our confidence in the effect estimates. RESULTS: Twelve trials were identified that met the inclusion criteria and assessed immunocompetent patients with external AGW. Compared with placebo, adjuvant alpha-, beta- and gamma-interferon were generally not significantly superior in terms of complete clearance over the short, intermediate or long term, nor with regard to intermediate- or long-term recurrence. However, the low-dose subgroup of adjuvant alpha-interferon was significantly superior compared with placebo regarding intermediate-term complete clearance and recurrence. Further data were available for the comparison of different dosages of alpha- and beta-interferon and for comparisons of the three interferon types. No significant differences were seen in these comparisons regarding efficacy. Data on quality of life were not available. CONCLUSIONS: The GRADE quality of the evidence ranged from 'very low' to 'high'. The significantly higher efficacy of low-dose alpha-interferon compared with placebo was based on a single trial, and our confidence in the effect estimates rated as 'low'. Overall, we found no reliable evidence favouring the systemic use of interferon after ablative treatment of AGW.

Ivermectin and permethrin for treating scabies.

BACKGROUND: Scabies is an intensely itchy parasitic infection of the skin. It occurs worldwide, but is particularly problematic in areas of poor sanitation, overcrowding, and social disruption. In recent years, permethrin and ivermectin have become the most relevant treatment options for scabies. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of topical permethrin and topical or systemic ivermectin for scabies in people of all ages. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to 25 April 2017: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and IndMED. We searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the ISRCTN registry, CenterWatch Clinical Trials Listing, ClinicalTrials.gov, TrialsCentral, and the UK Department of Health National Research Register for ongoing trials. We also searched multiple sources for grey literature and checked reference lists of included studies for additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials that compared permethrin or ivermectin against each other for people with scabies of all ages and either sex. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the identified records, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias for the included trials.The primary outcome was complete clearance of scabies. Secondary outcomes were number of participants re-treated, number of participants with at least one adverse event, and number of participants withdrawn from study due to an adverse event.We summarized dichotomous outcomes using risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). If it was not possible to calculate the point estimate, we described the data qualitatively. Where appropriate, we calculated combined effect estimates using a random-effects model and assessed heterogeneity. We calculated numbers needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome when we found a difference.We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We used the control rate average to provide illustrative clearance rates in the comparison groups. MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen studies (1896 participants) comparing topical permethrin, systemic ivermectin, or topical ivermectin met the inclusion criteria. Overall, the risk of bias in the included trials was moderate: reporting in many studies was poor. Nearly all studies were conducted in South Asia or North Africa, where the disease is more common, and is associated with poverty.EfficacyOral ivermectin (at a standard dose of 200 µg/kg) may lead to slightly lower rates of complete clearance after one week compared to permethrin 5% cream. Using the average clearance rate of 65% in the trials with permethrin, the illustrative clearance with ivermectin is 43% (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.78; 613 participants, 6 studies; low-certainty evidence). However, by week two there may be little or no difference (illustrative clearance of permethrin 74% compared to ivermectin 68%; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.08; 459 participants, 5 studies; low-certainty evidence). Treatments with one to three doses of ivermectin or one to three applications of permethrin may lead to little or no difference in rates of complete clearance after four weeks' follow-up (illustrative cures with 1 to 3 applications of permethrin 93% and with 1 to 3 doses of ivermectin 86%; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.03; 581 participants, 5 studies; low-certainty evidence).After one week of treatment with oral ivermectin at a standard dose of 200 µg/kg or one application of permethrin 5% lotion, there is probably little or no difference in complete clearance rates (illustrative cure rates: permethrin 73%, ivermectin 68%; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.17; 120 participants, 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). After two weeks of treatment, one dose of systemic ivermectin compared to one application of permethrin lotion may lead to similar complete clearance rates (extrapolated cure rates: 67% in both groups; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.29; 120 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence).There is probably little or no difference in rates of complete clearance between systemic ivermectin at standard dose and topical ivermectin 1% lotion four weeks after initiation of treatment (illustrative cure rates: oral ivermectin 97%, ivermectin lotion 96%; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03; 272 participants, 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Likewise, after four weeks, ivermectin lotion probably leads to little or no difference in rates of complete clearance when compared to permethrin cream (extrapolated cure rates: permethrin cream 94%, ivermectin lotion 96%; RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08; 210 participants, 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), and there is little or no difference among systemic ivermectin in different doses (extrapolated cure rates: 2 doses 90%, 1 dose 87%; RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.14; 80 participants, 1 study; high-certainty evidence).SafetyReporting of adverse events in the included studies was suboptimal. No withdrawals due to adverse events occurred in either the systemic ivermectin or the permethrin group (moderate-certainty evidence). Two weeks after treatment initiation, there is probably little or no difference in the proportion of participants treated with systemic ivermectin or permethrin cream who experienced at least one adverse event (55 participants, 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). After four weeks, ivermectin may lead to a slightly larger proportion of participants with at least one adverse event (extrapolated rates: permethrin 4%, ivermectin 5%; RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.83; 502 participants, 4 studies; low-certainty evidence).Adverse events in participants treated with topical ivermectin were rare and of mild intensity and comparable to those with systemic ivermectin. For this comparison, it is uncertain whether there is any difference in the number of participants with at least one adverse event (very low-certainty evidence). No withdrawals due to adverse events occurred (62 participants, 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence).It is uncertain whether topical ivermectin or permethrin differ in the number of participants with at least one adverse event (very low-certainty evidence). We found no studies comparing systemic ivermectin in different doses that assessed safety outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found that for the most part, there was no difference detected in the efficacy of permethrin compared to systemic or topical ivermectin. Overall, few and mild adverse events were reported. Our confidence in the effect estimates was mostly low to moderate. Poor reporting is a major limitation.

Umgang mit Antithrombotika bei Operationen an der Haut vor und nach Publikation der entsprechenden S3-Leitlinie.

HINTERGRUND: Laut einer Befragung im Jahre 2012 war der Umgang mit Antithrombotika bei dermatochirurgischen Eingriffen in Deutschland sehr heterogen. 2014 wurde erstmals eine evidenzbasierte Leitlinie zu diesem Thema veröffentlicht. METHODIK: Es wurde eine anonyme Befragung derselben Stichprobe zum Umgang mit Antithrombotika sowie zu Kenntnissen der Leitlinie durchgeführt. Die Ergebnisse wurden als relative Häufigkeiten berichtet und denen aus 2012 gegenübergestellt. ERGEBNISSE: 208 Antwortbögen wurden ausgewertet (Rücklaufquote: 36,6 %). Die große Mehrheit der Dermatologen erklärte, kleinere Eingriffe unter Fortführung der Therapie mit Phenprocoumon, niedrig dosierter Acetylsalicylsäure (≤ 100 mg) und Clopidogrel sowie mit direkten oralen Antikoagulanzien durchzuführen. Bei größeren Eingriffen war der Umgang hingegen weiterhin heterogen, insbesondere unter niedergelassenen Dermatologen. Der Anteil der Dermatologen, die Phenprocoumon, Acetylsalicylsäure und Clopidogrel leitlinienkonform verwendeten, hat sich insgesamt vergrößert. Führten 2012 beispielsweise 53,8 % der Klinikärzte bzw. 36,3 % der niedergelassenen Dermatologen eine große Exzision unter Fortführung der Therapie mit niedrig dosierter Acetylsalicylsäure durch, taten dies 2017 90,2 % bzw. 57,8 % (Phenprocoumon: 33,8 % bzw. 11,9 % auf 63,9 % bzw. 29,9 %; Clopidogrel: 36,9 % bzw. 23,2 % auf 63,9 % bzw. 30,6 %). Unter den Klinikärzten war ein hoher Anteil mit der Leitlinie vertraut und fand diese hilfreich. SCHLUSSFOLGERUNGEN: Eine Zunahme des leitlinienkonformen Verhaltens war bei allen Eingriffen zu verzeichnen. Bei größeren Eingriffen zeigte sich trotz deutlicher Verbesserung die Notwendigkeit verstärkter Anstrengungen zur Leitlinienumsetzung bzw. zur Identifizierung von Implementierungsbarrieren.

Management of antithrombotic agents in dermatologic surgery before and after publication of the corresponding German evidence-based guideline.

BACKGROUND: A survey in 2012 revealed marked heterogeneity in the management of antithrombotic agents in dermatologic surgery in Germany. An evidence-based guideline on this topic was published for the first time in 2014. METHODS: Using the same study sample, we conducted an anonymous survey on the management of antithrombotic agents and familiarity with the guideline. We reported the results as relative frequencies and compared them with those from 2012. RESULTS: We analyzed a total of 208 questionnaires (response rate: 36.6 %). A large majority of dermatologists reported performing minor procedures without discontinuing low-dose aspirin (≤ 100 mg), clopidogrel, or direct oral anticoagulants. In contrast, antithrombotic management was still heterogeneous in the context of major procedures, especially among office-based dermatologists. Overall, there was an increase in the proportion of dermatologists who managed phenprocoumon, aspirin, and clopidogrel in compliance with the guideline. For example, while 53.8 % of hospital-based dermatologists and 36.3 % of office-based dermatologists had performed large excisions on continued low-dose aspirin treatment in 2012, these figures showed an increase to 90.2 % and 57.8 %, respectively, by 2017 (phenprocoumon: from 33.8 % and 11.9 % to 63.9 % and 29.9 %, respectively; clopidogrel: from 36.9 % and 23.2 % to 63.9 % and 30.6 %, respectively). Among hospital dermatologists a large proportion was familiar with the guideline and considered it to be useful. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that compliance with the German guideline on the perioperative management of antithrombotics in dermatologic surgery has increased for all procedures. Despite this positive development, greater efforts are needed to improve implementation of the guideline and address barriers to its use in everyday practice.

S3 Guideline for the treatment of psoriasis vulgaris, update - Short version part 1 - Systemic treatment.

The German guideline for the treatment of psoriasis vulgaris was updated using GRADE methodology. The guideline is based on a systematic literature review completed on December 1, 2016, and on a formal consensus and approval process. The first section of this short version of the guideline covers systemic treatment options considered relevant by the expert panel and approved in Germany at the time of the consensus conference (acitretin, adalimumab, apremilast, cyclosporine, etanercept, fumaric acid esters, infliximab, methotrexate, secukinumab and ustekinumab). Detailed information is provided on the management and monitoring of the included treatment options.