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.

Linked Comment: Elewski. Br J Dermatol 2020; 182:1090–1091.

Plain language summary available online

Quality of life measurement in hidradenitis suppurativa: position statement of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology task forces on Quality of Life and Patient-Oriented Outcomes and Acne, Rosacea and Hidradenitis Suppurativa

This paper is organized jointly by the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) Task Force (TF) on Quality of Life (QoL) and Patient-Oriented Outcomes and the EADV TF on acne, rosacea and hidradenitis suppurativa (ARHS). The purpose of this paper was to present current knowledge about QoL assessment in HS, including data on HS-specific health-related (HR) QoL instruments and HRQoL changes in clinical trials, and to make practical recommendations concerning the assessment of QoL in people with HS. HS results in significant quimp that is higher than in most other chronic skin diseases. HS impact in published studies was assessed predominantly (84% of studies) by the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). There is a lack of high-quality clinical trials in HS patients where HRQoL instruments have been used as outcome measures. One double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial on infliximab with low number of participants reported significantly better HRQoL improvement in the treatment group than in the placebo group. Well-designed clinical studies in HS patients to compare different treatment methods, including surgical methods and assessing long-term effects, are needed. Because of lack of sufficient validation, the Task Forces are not at present able to recommend existing HS-specific HRQoL instruments for use in clinical studies. The EADV TFs recommend the dermatology-specific DLQI questionnaire for use in HS patients. The EADV TFs encourage the further development, validation and use of other HS-specific, dermatology-specific and generic instruments but such use should be based on the principles presented in the previous publications of the EADV TF on QoL and Patient-Oriented Outcomes.

Quality of life measurement in skin cancer patients: literature review and position paper of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Task Forces on Quality of Life and Patient Oriented Outcomes, Melanoma and Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer

The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) Task Forces (TFs) on Quality of Life (QoL) and Patient Oriented Outcomes, Melanoma and Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer (NMSC) present a review of the literature and position statement on health-related (HR) QoL assessment in skin cancer patients. A literature search was carried out to identify publications since 1980 that included information about the impact of SC on QoL. Generic, dermatology-specific, cancer-specific, SC-specific, facial SC-specific, NMSC-specific, basal cell carcinoma-specific and melanoma-specific QoL questionnaires have been used to assess HRQoL in SC patients. HRQoL was assessed in the context of creation and validation of the HRQoL instruments, clinical trials, comparison of QoL in SC and other cancers, other diseases or controls, HRQoL assessment after treatment, comorbidities, behaviour modification, predictors of QoL and survival, supportive care needs, coping strategies and fear of cancer recurrence. The most widely used instruments for HRQoL assessment in SC patients are the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Melanoma (FACT-M), Skin Cancer Index (SCI), Short Form 36 Item Health Survey (SF-36) and the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). The TFs recommend the use of the cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30, especially in late stages of disease, and the melanoma-specific FACT-M and SC-specific SCI questionnaires. These instruments have been well validated and used in several studies. Other HRQoL instruments, also with good basic validation, are not currently recommended because the experience of their use is too limited. Dermatology-specific HRQoL instruments can be used to assess the impact of skin-related problems in SC. The TFs encourage further studies to validate HRQoL instruments for use in different stages of SC, in order to allow more detailed practical recommendations on HRQoL assessment in SC.

Patient perceptions of clear/almost clear skin in moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: results of the Clear About Psoriasis worldwide survey

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic advances have made the achievement of clear/almost clear skin possible for many patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis.

OBJECTIVE

To determine patient perceptions of the impact of psoriasis and of attaining clear/almost clear skin.

METHODS

Global survey of patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis.

RESULTS

A total of 8338 patients from 31 countries participated. The majority (57%) had not achieved self-assessed clear/almost clear skin with their current therapy, and 56% of those who had not met this goal believed it would be impossible to do so. Among the patients who had clear/almost clear skin, 73% had not initiated their current treatment until >1 year after psoriasis diagnosis, and 28% had to wait >5 years. Eighty-four percent of all respondents experienced discrimination and/or humiliation due to psoriasis, and many reported negative effects on work, intimate relationships, sleep and mental health. Patients without clear/almost clear skin reported that such achievement would open new possibilities, such as swimming (58%), a wider choice of clothing (40%), and meeting new people (26%). A limitation of this study, as with any survey-based research, is that selection and recall bias may have been present. Additionally, respondent definitions of clear/almost clear skin were subjective and may have varied.

CONCLUSION

Despite the importance of clear/almost clear skin to psoriasis patients, most are still not achieving it, and many are unaware it is possible.

Safety and efficacy of apremilast through 104 weeks in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis who continued on apremilast or switched from etanercept treatment: findings from the LIBERATE study

Background

Apremilast, an oral phosphodiesterase‐4 inhibitor, has demonstrated efficacy in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis.

Objective

To evaluate long‐term efficacy and safety of apremilast in biologic‐naive patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis and safety of switching from etanercept to apremilast in the phase 3b LIBERATE trial.

Methods

Two hundred fifty patients were randomized to placebo, apremilast 30 mg BID or etanercept 50 mg QW through Week 16; thereafter, all patients continued or switched to apremilast through Week 104 (extension phase). Skin, scalp and nail involvement at Weeks 16, 52 and 104 were assessed using the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI; 0–72), Scalp Physician Global Assessment (ScPGA; 0–5) and Nail Psoriasis Severity Index (NAPSI; 0–8); patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed using the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI; 0–32) and pruritus visual analog scale (VAS; 0–100 mm).

Results

The apremilast‐extension phase (Weeks 16–104) included 226 patients in the placebo/apremilast (n = 73), apremilast/apremilast (n = 74) and etanercept/apremilast (n = 79) groups, and at Week 104, 50.7%, 45.9% and 51.9% of these patients, respectively, maintained ≥75% reduction from baseline in PASI score (based on last‐observation‐carried‐forward analysis). Across treatment groups, ScPGA 0 (clear) or 1 (minimal) was achieved by 50.0%–59.2% of patients; NAPSI mean change from baseline was −48.1% to −51.1%; DLQI score ≤5 was achieved by 66.0%–72.5% of patients; and pruritus VAS mean change from baseline was −24.4 to −32.3. AEs in ≥5% of patients (diarrhoea, nausea, nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection and headache) did not increase with prolonged apremilast exposure.

Conclusions

Apremilast demonstrated significant and sustained improvements in skin, scalp, nails and PROs (pruritus and quality of life) over 104 weeks in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Safety was consistent with the known safety profile of apremilast.

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.

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.

The efficacy and safety of apremilast, etanercept and placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis: 52-week results from a phase IIIb, randomized, placebo-controlled trial (LIBERATE)

Background

Apremilast, an oral, small‐molecule phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, has demonstrated efficacy in patients with moderate‐to‐severe psoriasis.

Objective

Evaluate efficacy and safety of apremilast vs. placebo in biologic‐naive patients with moderate‐to‐severe plaque psoriasis and safety of switching from etanercept to apremilast in a phase IIIb, randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled study (NCT01690299).

Methods

Two hundred and fifty patients were randomized to placebo (n = 84), apremilast 30 mg BID (n = 83) or etanercept 50 mg QW (n = 83) through Week 16; thereafter, all patients continued or switched to apremilast through Week 104. The primary efficacy endpoint was achievement of PASI‐75 at Week 16 with apremilast vs. placebo. Secondary endpoints included achievement of PASI‐75 at Week 16 with etanercept vs. placebo and improvements in other clinical endpoints vs. placebo at Week 16. Outcomes were assessed through Week 52. This study was not designed for apremilast vs. etanercept comparisons.

Results

At Week 16, PASI‐75 achievement was greater with apremilast (39.8%) vs. placebo (11.9%; P < 0.0001); 48.2% of patients achieved PASI‐75 with etanercept (P < 0.0001 vs. placebo). PASI‐75 response was maintained in 47.3% (apremilast/apremilast), 49.4% (etanercept/apremilast) and 47.9% (placebo/apremilast) of patients at Week 52. Most common adverse events (≥5%) with apremilast, including nausea, diarrhoea, upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, tension headache and headache, were mild or moderate in severity; diarrhoea and nausea generally resolved in the first month. No new safety or tolerability issues were observed through Week 52 with apremilast.

Conclusion

Apremilast demonstrated significant efficacy vs. placebo at Week 16 in biologic‐naive patients with psoriasis, which was sustained over 52 weeks, and demonstrated safety consistent with the known safety profile of apremilast. Switching from etanercept to apremilast did not result in any new or clinically significant safety findings, and efficacy was maintained with apremilast through Week 52.

Dysaesthetic penoscrotodynia may be a somatoform disorder: results from a two-centre retrospective case series

BACKGROUND

Dysaesthetic penoscrotodynia (DPSD) is a poorly understood disorder, in which men experience distressing symptoms such as burning pain in their genital skin. Drugs for neuropathic pain are often used, but with little success.

AIM

To review a series of patients with DPSD to highlight common themes and response to treatment.

METHODS

Ten consecutive patients with DPSD were identified from specialist male genital dermatology and psychodermatology clinics at two centres. Clinical details, including psychiatric history, were reviewed retrospectively. Patients with no previously diagnosed psychiatric illness completed either the Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD)-7 scale and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9 depression scale, or the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI).

RESULTS

Of the 10 patients, 9 had known or newly diagnosed psychopathology. All patients were offered psychodermatological treatment, of which 7 of 10 accepted. All of those who accepted psychodermatological treatment experienced an improvement in their genital symptoms. When post-treatment scores were collected, improvement in psychiatric symptoms accompanied improvement in genital symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Psychopathology is almost invariably present in individuals with DPSD, yet these patients rarely volunteer such information. DPSD is most likely to constitute a functional somatic symptom disorder, hence psychodermatological treatment is indicated for its management. This concept reflects a significant change in the approach to this condition.

Tertiary syphilis and Kaposi sarcoma mistaken for systemic sarcoidosis in an HIV-negative patient

We describe a case of an HIV-negative man who was mistakenly diagnosed as having systemic sarcoidosis, which led to a delay in diagnosing tertiary syphilis and Kaposi sarcoma (KS). The patient presented initially with scrotal swelling and leg oedema. Initial blood tests were unremarkable and HIV testing was negative. The patient then developed unilateral limb weakness. Computed tomography showed lung lesions and hilar lymphadenopathy, while magnetic resonance imaging showed an increased signal in the cervical cord. Serum angiotensin-converting enzyme was raised, and a diagnosis of sarcoidosis was made and the patient started on steroids. Subsequently, his clinical symptoms and radiological abnormalities improved. However, he then developed progressive neurological deficits over several weeks, together with uveitis and cutaneous lesions. A uveitis screen showed a raised venereal disease research laboratory test titre and the cause of his multisystemic symptoms was revisited. He was diagnosed with tertiary syphilis and treated with antibiotics. Dermatologists reviewed the skin lesions and diagnosed KS, which was confirmed with biopsies. The patient's neurological deficit remains. Syphilis should be considered in the differential diagnosis of any patient presenting with neurological problems, skin lesions or symptoms affecting multiple systems. Co-existing KS presented an extra therapeutic challenge in this case.

Suicide and depression in a patient with psoriasis receiving adalimumab: the role of the dermatologist

A 53-year-old man took his own life while receiving biological therapy with the tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitor adalimumab for severe psoriasis. The patient had a psychiatric history and a 32-year history of variable unstable psoriasis. Reported suicide in patients with psoriasis receiving adalimumab is rare (only one other reported case). It is important, however, to recognize the effects of skin disease on the mental health of vulnerable patients receiving biological agents. Patients will benefit from a more holistic approach that includes both dermatological and psychological assessment and treatment.

How to set up a psychodermatology clinic

BACKGROUND

Psychodermatology is a recognized subspecialty, but lack of awareness among dermatologists and limitation of resources make the management of these patients challenging. Clinicians are often unsure about the practicalities of setting up a psychodermatology service. There is confusion about which model is best suited to which service, and about the development of a psychodermatology multidisciplinary team.

AIM

To identify the necessary steps in setting up a psychodermatology clinic.

METHODS

The study was based on the experience of a UK-based psychodermatology unit and the recently published standards by the UK Psychodermatology Working Party.

RESULTS

The type of service provision will depend on the type of patients seen in the unit. The core team will be composed of a psychodermatologist and a psychologist. Access to a psychiatrist is essential if patients present with primary psychiatric conditions or primary cutaneous conditions with suicidal or other psychiatric risks. Adequate training of the healthcare staff is advised. The premises and time allocation should be adequate, and this translates into higher tariffs. Using business care tariffs for people with mental health conditions might be more appropriate, as the consultations are longer and involve more members of staff; however, the overall cost remains lower than if these patients were seen in a general dermatology service or in the community.

CONCLUSIONS

Psychodermatology services are globally limited, and yet the demand for psychodermatology care is high. There is evidence that dedicated psychodermatology services are cost-effective. Healthcare professionals need to be aware of the steps necessary to establish and maintain psychodermatology services.

Psoriasis: 'the badge of shame'. A case report of a psychological intervention to reduce and potentially clear chronic skin disease

The psychological effects of skin disorders have long been established. Most research on psychological interventions for people with skin disorders has focused predominantly on cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT); however, CBT is not appropriate for everyone. We assessed the benefits of a psychological intervention, using the principles of systemic family therapy (SFT). The key to SFT is the understanding of problems in the context of family and social relationships, and how reciprocal dynamics influence problems. Problems thus have a dual construction; they do not exist only within individuals but rather are a product of the interactions between people and wider systems, such as communities and cultures. This report focuses on the importance of practice-based evidence and the need for more research. A 46-year-old female with a 40-year history of psoriasis was referred for psychological therapy for feelings of shame and low self-esteem. Many medications, including biologics, had been tried previously with no success. Initially, the patient attended therapy alone; later, her husband and other family members joined her. Issues around her past, relationships, and personal beliefs/assumptions were explored. Over ten 50-min sessions, she was able to view her dynamics and relationships in a more helpful way. Her psoriasis cleared, reinforcing that it may have been caused by underlying psychological difficulties. Dermatologists need to work in a more holistic way to provide quality care to patients, meeting their psychological and dermatological needs. There is also a need to develop a broader evidence base and interventions for people with skin disorders.