A survey among dermatologists: diagnostics of superficial fungal infections - what is used and what is needed to initiate therapy and assess efficacy?

BACKGROUND: Superficial fungal infections are common. It is important to confirm the clinical diagnosis by mycological laboratory methods before initiating systemic antifungal treatment, especially as antifungal sensitivity and in vitro susceptibility may differ between different genera and species. For many years, the gold standard for diagnosis of superficial fungal infections has been direct fungal detection in the clinical specimen (microscopy) supplemented by culturing. Lately, newer molecular based methods for fungal identification have been developed. OBJECTIVE: This study was initiated to focus on the current usage of mycological diagnostics for superficial fungal infections by dermatologists. It was designed to investigate whether it was necessary to differentiate between initial diagnostic tests and those used at treatment follow-up in specific superficial fungal infections. METHODS: An online questionnaire was distributed among members of the EADV mycology Task Force and other dermatologists with a special interest in mycology and nail disease. RESULTS: The survey was distributed to 62 dermatologists of whom 38 (61%) completed the whole survey, 7 (11%) partially completed and 17 (27%) did not respond. Nearly, all respondents (82-100%) said that ideally they would use the result of direct microscopy (or histology) combined with a genus/species directed treatment of onychomycosis, dermatophytosis, Candida- and Malassezia-related infections. The majority of the dermatologists used a combination of clinical assessment and direct microscopy for treatment assessment and the viability of the fungus was considered more important at this visit than when initiating the treatment. Molecular based methods were not available for all responders. CONCLUSION: The available diagnostic methods are heterogeneous and their usage differs between different practices as well as between countries. The survey confirmed that dermatologists find it important to make a mycological diagnosis, particularly prior to starting oral antifungal treatment in order to confirm the diagnose and target the therapy according to genus and species

The Global Hidradenitis Suppurativa Atlas (GHiSA) methodology: Combining global proportions in a pooled analysis

Introduction: Data concerning the global burden of Hidradenitis Suppurativa (HS) are limited. Reported prevalence estimates vary between 0.0003% and 4.1%, and data from various geographical regions are still to be collected. Previously reported prevalence rates have been limited by the methodological approach and source of data. This has resulted in great heterogeneity as prevalence data from physician-diagnosed cases poorly match those of self-reported apparent HS disease. Methods: The Global Hidradenitis Suppurativa Atlas (GHiSA) introduces an innovative approach to determine the global prevalence of HS. This approach involves using a previously validated questionnaire to screen apparently healthy adults accompanying a patient to a non-dermatological outpatient clinic visit in a hospital. The screening questionnaire (i.e., the index test) is combined with a subsequent physician-based in-person validation (i.e., the reference standard) of the participants who screen positive. Ten percent of the screen-negative participants are also clinically assessed to verify the diagnostic precision of the test. The local prevalence (pi) will be estimated from each country that submits the number of patients who are HS positive according to the index test and clinical examination (n), and the corresponding total number of observations (N). Conclusion: The GHiSA Global Prevalence studies are currently running simultaneously in 58 countries across six continents (Africa, Europe, Australia, North America, South America, and Asia). The goal of the combined global proportion is the generation of a single summary (i.e., proportional meta-analysis), which will be done after a logit transformation, and synthesized using a random-effects model. The novel standardization of the Global Prevalence studies conducted through GHiSA enables direct international comparisons, which were previously not possible due to substantial heterogeneity in past HS prevalence studies