A proposed scoring system for assessing the severity of actinic keratosis on the head: actinic keratosis area and severity index

Background: Actinic keratosis (AK) severity is currently evaluated by subjective assessment of patients. Objectives: To develop and perform an initial pilot validation of a new easy-to-use quantitative tool for assessing AK severity on the head. Methods: The actinic keratosis area and severity index (AKASI) for the head was developed based on a review of other severity scoring systems in dermatology, in particular the psoriasis area and severity index (PASI). Initial validation was performed by 13 physicians assessing AK severity in 18 AK patients and two controls using a physician global assessment (PGA) and AKASI. To determine an AKASI score, the head was divided into four regions (scalp, forehead, left/right cheek ear, chin and nose). In each region, the percentage of the area affected by AKs was estimated, and the severities of three clinical signs of AK were assessed: distribution, erythema and thickness. Results: There was a strong correlation between AKASI and PGA scores (Pearson correlation coefficient: 0.86). AKASI was able to discriminate between different PGA categories: mean (SD) AKASI increased from 2.88 (1.18) for ‘light’ to 5.33 (1.48) for ‘moderate’, 8.28 (1.89) for ‘severe’, and 8.73 (3.03) for ‘very severe’ PGA classification. The coefficient of variation for AKASI scores was low and relatively constant across all PGA categories. Conclusions: Actinic keratosis area and severity index is proposed as a new quantitative tool for assessing AK severity on the head. It may be useful in the future evaluation of new AK treatments in clinical studies and the management of AK in daily practice

Comparison of the Simple Patient-Centric Atopic Dermatitis Scoring System PEST with SCORAD in Young Children Using a Ceramide Dominant Therapeutic Moisturizer.

INTRODUCTION: Patient eczema severity time (PEST) is a new atopic dermatitis (AD) scoring system based on patients' own perception of their disease. Conventional scales such as SCORing of atopic dermatitis (SCORAD) reflect the clinician's observations during the clinic visit. Instead, the PEST score captures eczema severity, relapse and recovery as experienced by the patient or caregiver on a daily basis, promoting patient engagement, compliance with treatment and improved outcomes. This study aims to determine the correlation between carer-assessed PEST and clinician-assessed SCORAD in paediatric AD patients after 12 weeks of treatment using a ceramide-dominant therapeutic moisturizer. METHODS: Prospective, open-label, observational, multi-centre study in which children with AD aged 6 months to 6 years were treated with a ceramide dominant therapeutic moisturizer twice daily for 12 weeks; 58 children with mild-to-moderate AD were included. Correlation between the 7-day averaged PEST and SCORAD scores for assessment of AD severity was measured within a general linear model. PEST and SCORAD were compared in week 4 and week 12. RESULTS: At week 12, a moderate correlation was found between the SCORAD and PEST scores (r = 0.51). The mean change in SCORAD and PEST scores from baseline to week 12 was -11.46 [95% confidence interval (CI) -14.99 to -7.92, p < 0.0001] and -1.33 (95% CI -0.71 to -0.10, p < 0.0001) respectively. PEST demonstrated greater responsiveness to change (33.3% of scale) compared to SCORAD (13.8% of scale). CONCLUSION: The PEST score correlates well with the SCORAD score and may have improved sensitivity when detecting changes in the severity of AD. The ceramide-dominant therapeutic moisturizer used was safe and effective in the management of AD in young children

ETFAD/EADV Eczema task force 2020 position paper on diagnosis and treatment of atopic dermatitis in adults and children

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a highly pruritic, chronic inflammatory skin disease. The diagnosis is made using evaluated clinical criteria. Disease activity and burden are best measured with a composite score, assessing both objective and subjective symptoms, such as SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD). AD management must take into account clinical and pathogenic variabilities, the patient’s age and also target flare prevention. Basic therapy includes hydrating and barrier‐stabilizing topical treatment universally applied, as well as avoiding specific and unspecific provocation factors. Visible skin lesions are treated with anti‐inflammatory topical agents such as corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors (tacrolimus and pimecrolimus), which are preferred in sensitive locations. Topical tacrolimus and some mid‐potency corticosteroids are proven agents for proactive therapy, which is defined as the long‐term intermittent anti‐inflammatory therapy of frequently relapsing skin areas. Systemic anti‐inflammatory or immunosuppressive treatment is a rapidly changing field requiring monitoring. Oral corticosteroids have a largely unfavourable benefit–risk ratio. The IL‐4R‐blocker dupilumab is a safe, effective and licensed, but expensive, treatment option with potential ocular side‐effects. Other biologicals targeting key pathways in the atopic immune response, as well as different Janus kinase inhibitors, are among emerging treatment options. Dysbalanced microbial colonization and infection may induce disease exacerbation and can justify additional antimicrobial treatment. Systemic antihistamines (H1R‐blockers) only have limited effects on AD‐related itch and eczema lesions. Adjuvant therapy includes UV irradiation, preferably narrowband UVB or UVA1. Coal tar may be useful for atopic hand and foot eczema. Dietary recommendations should be patient‐specific, and elimination diets should only be advised in case of proven food allergy. Allergen‐specific immunotherapy to aeroallergens may be useful in selected cases. Psychosomatic counselling is recommended to address stress‐induced exacerbations. Efficacy‐proven 'Eczema school' educational programmes and therapeutic patient education are recommended for both children and adults

Interventions to reduce Staphylococcus aureus in the management of eczema

© 2019 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Background Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) can cause secondary infection in eczema, and may promote inflammation in eczema that does not look infected. There is no standard intervention to reduce S. aureus burden in eczema. It is unclear whether antimicrobial treatments help eczema or promote bacterial resistance. This is an update of a 2008 Cochrane Review. Objectives To assess the effects of interventions to reduce S. aureus for treating eczema. Search methods We updated our searches of the following databases to October 2018: Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS. We searched five trials registers and three sets of conference proceedings. We checked references of trials and reviews for further relevant studies. We contacted pharmaceutical companies regarding ongoing and unpublished trials. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials of products intended to reduce S. aureus on the skin in people diagnosed with atopic eczema by a medical practitioner. Eligible comparators were a similar treatment regimen without the anti-staphylococcal agent. Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our key outcomes were participant-or assessor-rated global improvement in symptoms/signs, quality of life (QOL), severe adverse events requiring withdrawal, minor adverse events, and emergence of antibiotic-resistant micro-organisms. Main results We included 41 studies (1753 analysed participants) covering 10 treatment categories. Studies were conducted mainly in secondary care in Western Europe; North America; the Far East; and elsewhere. Twelve studies recruited children; four, adults; 19, both; and six, unclear. Fifty-nine per cent of the studies reported the mean age of participants (range: 1.1 to 34.6 years). Eczema severity ranged from mild to severe. Many studies did not report our primary outcomes. Treatment durations ranged from 10 minutes to 3 months; total study durations ranged from 15 weeks to 27 months. We considered 33 studies at high risk of bias in at least one domain. We present results for three key comparisons. All time point measurements were taken from baseline. We classed outcomes as short-term when treatment duration was less than four weeks, and long-term when treatment was given for more than four weeks. Fourteen studies evaluated topical steroid/antibiotic combinations compared to topical steroids alone (infective status: infected (two studies), not infected (four studies), unspecified (eight studies)). Topical steroid/antibiotic combinations may lead to slightly greater global improvement in good or excellent signs/symptoms than topical steroid alone at 6 to 28 days follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.21; 224 participants; 3 studies, low-quality evidence). There is probably little or no difference between groups for QOL in children, at 14 days follow-up (mean difference (MD)-0.18, 95% CI-0.40 to 0.04; 42 participants; 1 study, moderate-quality evidence). The subsequent results for this comparison were based on very low-quality evidence, meaning we are uncertain of their validity: severe adverse events were rare (follow-up: between 6 to 28 days): both groups reported flare of dermatitis, worsening of the condition, and folliculitis (325 participants; 4 studies). There were fewer minor adverse events (e.g. flare, stinging, itch, folliculitis) in the combination group at 14 days follow-up (218 participants; 2 studies). One study reported antibiotic resistance in children at three months follow-up, with similar results between the groups (65 participants; 1 study). Four studies evaluated oral antibiotics compared to placebo (infective status: infected eczema (two studies), uninfected (one study), one study’s participants had colonisation but no clinical infection). Oral antibiotics may make no difference in terms of good or excellent global improvement in infants and children at 14 to 28 days follow-up compared to placebo (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.18 to 3.50; 75 participants; 2 studies, low-quality evidence). There is probably little or no difference between groups for QOL (in infants and children) at 14 days follow-up (MD 0.11, 95% CI-0.10 to 0.32, 45 participants, 1 study, moderate-quality evidence). The subsequent results for this comparison were based on very low-quality evidence, meaning we are uncertain of their validity: adverse events requiring treatment withdrawal between 14 to 28 days follow-up were very rare, but included eczema worsening (both groups), loose stools (antibiotic group), and Henoch-Schönlein purpura (placebo group) (4 studies, 199 participants). Minor adverse events, including nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, and stomach and joint pains, at 28 days follow-up were also rare and generally low in both groups (1 study, 68 infants and children). Antibiotic resistance at 14 days was reported as similar in both groups (2 studies, 98 infants and children). Of five studies evaluating bleach baths compared to placebo (water) or bath emollient (infective status: uninfected (two studies), unspecified (three studies)), one reported global improvement and showed that bleach baths may make no difference when compared with placebo at one month follow-up (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.63; 36 participants; low-quality evidence). One study showed there is probably little or no difference in QOL at 28 days follow-up when comparing bleach baths to placebo (MD 0.90, 95% CI-1.32 to 3.12) (80 infants and children; moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain if the groups differ in the likelihood of treatment withdrawals due to adverse events at two months follow-up (only one dropout reported due to worsening itch (placebo group)) as the quality of evidence was very low (1 study, 42 participants). One study reported that five participants in each group experienced burning/stinging or dry skin at two months follow-up, so there may be no difference in minor adverse events between groups (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.87, 36 participants, low-quality evidence). Very low-quality evidence means we are also uncertain if antibiotic resistance at four weeks follow-up is different between groups (1 study, 80 participants ≤ 18 years). Authors' conclusions We found insufficient evidence on the effects of anti-staphylococcal treatments for treating people with infected or uninfected eczema. Low-quality evidence, due to risk of bias, imprecise effect estimates and heterogeneity, made pooling of results difficult. Topical steroid/ antibiotic combinations may be associated with possible small improvements in good or excellent signs/symptoms compared with topical steroid alone. High-quality trials evaluating efficacy, QOL, and antibiotic resistance are required