S1-Leitlinie zur UV-Phototherapie und Photochemotherapie

The impact of phototherapy on itch intensity and itch-related quality of life amongst different skin diseases, skin phototypes and genders - A prospective study with 102 patients

BACKGROUND

Phototherapy is a mainstay to treat itchy conditions. However, only little is known about differences in the antipruritic effect of phototherapy amongst different skin conditions, phototypes and genders.

METHODS

In this prospective, single-center study, we analyzed the effect of phototherapy on itch intensity and itch-related quality of life amongst these subgroups after a treatment duration of 4 weeks, while on-demand treatment with topical corticosteroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors and/or antihistamines was allowed.

RESULTS

Of 102 patients (age 53.0 ± 18.7, 56 females [54.9%]), 72 (78.3%) reported a significant reduction of itch intensity by Δ -2.76 on a 0-10 Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), p = <.001, 95% CI [2.2; 3.3] paralleled by a significant improvement of itch-related quality of life as measured by the German version of the ItchyQoL by Δ 7.3, p = <.001, 95% CI [4.4; 11.6]. The best improvement of itch intensity and itch-related QoL was reported by patients with pruritus on non-diseased skin (ΔNRS -3.5; Δ 9.7 Ger-ItchyQoL points), followed by patients with atopic dermatitis and psoriasis. We found no statistical differences in the response to phototherapy amongst Fitzpatrick phototypes I-VI. Women had higher itch intensities at baseline but itch-related quality of life impairment at baseline and phototherapy treatment response did not significantly differ between genders.

CONCLUSION

Phototherapy appears to induce a meaningful itch reduction in various itchy skin conditions, all phototypes and both genders within 4 weeks that directly translates into improvement of itch-related quality of life.

Global Tanning Bed Advertising: A Comparison of Legal Regulations on Three Continents

Artificial ultraviolet radiation from tanning beds has been classified as carcinogenic by the International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2009. Several countries have subsequently introduced comprehensive legislation regulating commercial indoor tanning. Specific aspects of these regulations address tanning bed advertising and information requirements for tanning bed customers, which have been previously neglected in international comparisons of indoor tanning regulations. We performed a systematic search regarding legislation on these aspects in 131 legislative units across three continents (North America, Australia/New Zealand, Europe). The legal restrictions found varied widely in type and content. In 49 legislative units we identified total (n = 8) or partial legal bans (n = 41) on advertising for indoor tanning, while 64 legislative units enacted 5regulations that necessitate the dissemination of different types of specific health information to tanning bed customers. Nearly 40% of the legislative units of the study region lacked any legislation on these issues altogether. The heterogenous results emphasize the need for an international dialogue between health authorities and governments to harmonize the regulatory framework for tanning bed advertising and information requirements to a level better protecting the public from skin cancer. Our comprehensive international comparison can serve as a starting point for such a harmonization process that may ultimately protect the public worldwide from misleading tanning bed advertising.

Differences in phototherapy among skin diseases and genders in real-life conditions-A retrospective analysis of the cumulative doses, numbers of sessions, side effects and costs in 561 patients

BACKGROUND

Phototherapy has been a mainstay therapy for dermatological diseases since more than a century. Although phototherapy is still extensively used and some recommendations exist, only scarce data are available addressing disease-specific differences in cumulative doses, treatment durations and costs. Knowledge of such differences could help to avoid over-/undertreatment, predict treatment duration and costs. Therefore, we sought to determine differences in cumulative doses, numbers of sessions, side effects and costs among different skin diseases and genders in real-life conditions.

METHODS

In this single-centre, retrospective study, patients treated with phototherapy between March 2014 and April 2019 were classified into seven diagnostic groups and analysed according to the study goals.

RESULTS

Out of 561 patients (age 53.9 ± 20.3 yrs; 52.9% females), 83.7% percent were treated with cabin NB-UVB (mean cumulative dose 17.79 ± 17.11 J/cm² ). Patients with vitiligo and psoriasis were treated with significantly higher cumulative NB-UVB doses (cabin, local) in comparison with the five other diagnostic groups as were males in comparison with females. Consequently, significantly higher UV-related costs resulted in patients with vitiligo, psoriasis and males. Patients with atopic dermatitis and pruritus were treated with significantly higher cumulative UVA1 doses compared to patients with non-atopic eczema. The complication rate (pooled from all UV modalities) in our population was 3.8% (erythema 3.4%, aggravated itch 0.4% and worsening of symptoms 0.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate that cumulative doses and phototherapy-related costs vary strongly among skin diseases-a fact not adequately considered in recommendations. A more disease-specific stratification of phototherapy could not only help to optimize outcomes, but also to facilitate comparability of clinical trials using phototherapy.

[Epidemiology and treatment of adult patients with atopic dermatitis : Analysis of longitudinal data of the statutory health insurance scheme]

BACKGROUND

The goal was to report incidence, prevalence, and treatment patterns in adult atopic dermatitis (AD) patients in the German statutory health insurance system.

PATIENT AND METHODS

Anonymized claims data were evaluated at patient level for 3.3 million persons insured by six different statutory health insurance companies (SHI). Patients for whom the ICD-10 diagnosis code L20 (AD) was applied at least twice were analyzed and data on prescription patterns for AD were reported for the years 2011-2015.

RESULTS

AD prevalence in adults was 1.6-1.9% in 2012-2015. Annual incidence was 0.28%. In Q3/Q4 2015, 44.2% of the adult population with AD diagnosis by a dermatologist received prescriptions for AD medications: 1.6% low-potency topical glucocorticoids (without previous prescription of systemic drugs), 46.9% moderate or high-potency topical glucocorticoids or topical calcineurin inhibitors, 23.9% current systemic therapy (systemic glucocorticoids, ciclosporin, methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolate mofetil) and 27.6% systemic therapy in the past.

CONCLUSIONS

The AD prevalence estimate was in the range of previous reports (1.35-4%) that used different methodologies. Based on treatment proxy, it appeared that almost more than half of AD patients treated with prescription ready-to-use drugs had a severe form of AD which required treatment with systemic drugs.

[UV phototherapy : UV phototherapy and photodiagnostics-a practical overview]

UV phototherapy is an essential and efficient therapeutic option in the treatment of dermatological diseases. It is an integral part of multiple guidelines and maintains its high clinical significance despite the development of new therapeutic options for systemic treatment. Due to the difficult revenue situation, the market for ready-to-use products of psoralen and UV therapy devices is constantly changing.

Lichturtikaria: Klinik, Diagnostik, Verlauf und Therapiemanagement bei 27 Patienten

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Solar urticaria is a rare photodermatosis, yet lacking standardization in diagnosis and therapy. The aim of this research was to use innovative radiation sources for diagnostics with defines and reproducible emission spectrum and doses. A uniform therapy step scheme was to be created.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a longitudinal study, 27 patients were examined with solar urticaria over 13 years. With a characteristic anamnesis, the diagnosis was confirmed with phototesting from various radiation sources (UVB, UVB311nm, UVA, UVA1, green light, red light) and a therapy step scheme consisting of light protection, antihistamines, rush hardening with UVA-1 and the treatment with omalizumab.

RESULTS

Action spectrum: UVB 44 %, UVA 70 %, UVA1 89 %, green light 37 % and red light 22 %. Rush hardening was performed on 20 patients, 17 of whom were adequately protected. In three further patients, omalizumab was additionally treated in off-label use.

CONCLUSIONS

Photoprovocation with UVB, UVB311nm, UVA, UVA-1 and visible light with innovative radiation sources is uniformly possible in every major skin clinic. With the help of the therapy step scheme the patients can be adjusted well, a Rush Hardening with UVA-1 is a safe method to help the patients during the sunny season. Omalizumab as the last therapy option is effective, but currently only possible in off-label use.

Solar urticaria: Clinic, diagnostic, course and therapy management in 27 patients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Solar urticaria is a rare photodermatosis, the diagnosis and therapy of which have not yet been standardized. The aim of this research was to use innovative radiation sources for diagnostics with defined and reproducible emission spectra and doses. A uniform therapy step scheme was to be created.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a longitudinal study, 27 patients with solar urticaria were examined over 13 years. With a characteristic anamnesis, the diagnosis was confirmed with phototesting (photoprovocation) from various radiation sources (UVB, UVB311nm, UVA, UVA-1, green light, red light) and a therapy step scheme was designed consisting of light protection, antihistamines, rush hardening with UVA-1, and administration of omalizumab.

RESULTS

Action spectrum: UVB 44 %, UVA 70 %, UVA-1 89 %, green light 37 % and red light 22 %. Rush hardening with subsequent maintenance therapy was performed on 20 patients, 17 of whom were hereby adequately protected. In three further patients, omalizumab was additionally administered.

CONCLUSIONS

Phototesting with UVB, UVB311nm, UVA, UVA-1, and visible light with innovative radiation sources is uniformly possible in every major skin clinic. With the help of the therapy step scheme the patients can be adjusted well. Rush hardening with UVA-1 is a safe method to help the patients during the sunny season. Omalizumab as the last therapy option is effective, but currently only possible in off-label use.