-
Critical Care Medicine May 2021Anaphylaxis is a rapidly progressive life-threatening syndrome manifesting as pruritus, urticaria, angioedema, bronchospasm and shock. The goal of this synthetic review...
OBJECTIVES
Anaphylaxis is a rapidly progressive life-threatening syndrome manifesting as pruritus, urticaria, angioedema, bronchospasm and shock. The goal of this synthetic review is to provide a practical, updated approach to the evaluation and management of this disorder and associated complications.
DATA SOURCES
A MEDLINE search was conducted with the MeSH of anaphylaxis, anaphylactic reaction, anaphylactic shock, refractory anaphylaxis and subheadings of diagnosis, classification, epidemiology, complications and pharmacology. The level of evidence supporting an intervention was evaluated based on the availability of randomized studies, expert opinion, case studies, reviews, practice parameters and other databases (including Cochrane).
STUDY SELECTION
Selected publications describing anaphylaxis, clinical trials, diagnosis, mechanisms, risk factors and management were retrieved (reviews, guidelines, clinical trials, case series) and their bibliographies were also reviewed to identify relevant publications.
DATA EXTRACTION
Data from the relevant publications were reviewed, summarized and the information synthesized.
DATA SYNTHESIS
This is a synthetic review and the data obtained from a literature review was utilized to describe current trends in the diagnosis and management of the patient with anaphylaxis with a special emphasis on newer evolving concepts of anaphylaxis endotypes and phenotypes, management of refractory anaphylaxis in the ICU setting and review of therapeutic options for the elderly patient, or the complicated patient with severe cardiorespiratory complications. Most of the recommendations come from practice parameters, case studies or expert opinions, with a dearth of randomized trials to support specific interventions.
CONCLUSION
Anaphylaxis is a rapidly progressive life-threatening disorder. The critical care physician needs to be familiar with the diagnosis, differential diagnosis, evaluation, and management of anaphylaxis. Skilled intervention in ICUs may be required for the patient with complicated, severe, or refractory anaphylaxis.
Topics: Anaphylaxis; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Bronchodilator Agents; Critical Care; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Life Support Care
PubMed: 33653974
DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000004893 -
Allergy Apr 2021As an evidence resource for the currently planned European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) clinical practice guideline "systemic treatment of atopic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
As an evidence resource for the currently planned European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) clinical practice guideline "systemic treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD)," we critically appraised evidence on systemic treatments for moderate-to-severe AD.
METHODS
We systematically identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the safety and efficacy of systemic treatments for AD up to February 2020. Primary efficacy outcomes were clinical signs, AD symptoms and health-related quality of life. Primary safety outcomes included cumulative incidence rates for (serious) adverse events. Trial quality was assessed applying the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. Meta-analyses were conducted where appropriate.
RESULTS
50 RCTs totalling 6681 patients were included. Trial evidence was identified for apremilast, azathioprine (AZA), baricitinib, ciclosporin A (CSA), corticosteroids, dupilumab, interferon-gamma, intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG), mepolizumab, methotrexate (MTX), omalizumab, upadacitinib and ustekinumab. Meta-analyses were indicated for the efficacy of baricitinib [EASI75 RD 0.16, 95% CI (0.10;0.23)] and dupilumab [EASI75, RD 0.37, 95% CI (0.32;0.42)] indicating short-term (ie 16-week treatment) superiority over placebo. Furthermore, efficacy analyses of AZA and CSA indicated short-term superiority over placebo; however, nonvalidated scores were used and can therefore not be compared to EASI.
CONCLUSION
The most robust, replicated high-quality trial evidence is present for the efficacy and safety of dupilumab for up to 1 year in adults. Robust trial evidence was further revealed for AZA, baricitinib and CSA. Methodological restrictions led to limited evidence-based conclusions for all other systemic treatments. Head-to-head trials with novel systemic treatments are required to clarify the future role of conventional therapies.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Cyclosporine; Dermatitis, Atopic; Eczema; Humans
PubMed: 33074565
DOI: 10.1111/all.14631 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Nov 2022The comparative safety and efficacy of the biologics currently approved for asthma are unclear. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The comparative safety and efficacy of the biologics currently approved for asthma are unclear.
OBJECTIVE
We compared the safety and efficacy of mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab in individuals with severe eosinophilic asthma.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature published 2000 to 2021. We studied Bayesian network meta-analyses of exacerbation rates, prebronchodilator FEV, the Asthma Control Questionnaire, and serious adverse events in individuals with eosinophilic asthma.
RESULTS
Eight randomized clinical trials (n = 6461) were identified. We found in individuals with eosinophils ≥300 cells/μL the following: in reducing exacerbation rates compared to placebo: dupilumab (risk ratio [RR], 0.32; 95% credible interval [CI], 0.23 to 0.45), mepolizumab (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.45), and benralizumab (RR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.55); in improving FEV: dupilumab (mean difference in milliliters [MD] 230; 95% CI, 160 to 300), benralizumab (MD, 150; 95% CI, 100 to 200), and mepolizumab (MD, 150; 95% CI, 66 to 220); and in reducing Asthma Control Questionnaire scores: mepolizumab (MD, -0.63; 95% CI, -0.81 to -0.45), dupilumab (MD, -0.48; 95% CI, -0.83 to -0.14), and benralizumab (MD, -0.32; 95% CI, -0.43 to -0.21). In individuals with eosinophils 150-299 cells/μL, benralizumab (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.73) and dupilumab (RR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.95) were associated with lower exacerbation rates; and only benralizumab (MD, 81; 95% CI, 8 to 150) significantly improved FEV. These differences were minimal compared to clinically important thresholds. For serious adverse events in the overall population, mepolizumab (odds ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.92) and benralizumab (odds ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.93) were associated with lower odds of a serious adverse event, while dupilumab was not different from placebo (odds ratio, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.4).
CONCLUSION
There are minimal differences in the efficacy and safety of mepolizumab, benralizumab, and dupilumab in eosinophilic asthma.
Topics: Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Asthma; Pulmonary Eosinophilia; Eosinophils; Anti-Asthmatic Agents
PubMed: 35772597
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2022.05.024 -
Dermatology (Basel, Switzerland) 2023Demodex mites are related to some inflammatory diseases such as rosacea and blepharitis and could be harmful in patients with immunodeficiency or immunosuppression,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Demodex mites are related to some inflammatory diseases such as rosacea and blepharitis and could be harmful in patients with immunodeficiency or immunosuppression, especially notable in patients using biologic like dupilumab. In order to have an objective observation of different anti-Demodex strategies, we conducted this study, based on interventional clinical evidence with quantified Demodex mite data.
METHODS
We used the PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, Medline, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) as databases. To assess the risk of bias, the RoB2 and ROBINS-I tools were used. The certainty of evidence was assessed following the GRADE guideline. Furthermore, the effect sizes (ESs) of different strategies were compared in different time periods (0-1, 1-2, 2-3, >3 months), as well as Demodex decrease rates.
RESULTS
1,618 studies were identified in the databases, with 21 of which included in the final quantitative synthesis. Interventions in these studies included ivermectin, tea tree oil (TTO), permethrin, crotamiton, metronidazole, light therapies, combined therapies, and other therapies. During 0-1 month, the ES varied from 0.07 (cleanser) to 1.95 (systemic ivermectin-metronidazole). During 1-2 months, the ES varied from 0.88 (topical permethrin) to 4.40 (topical ivermectin). During 2-3 months, the ES varied from 0.79 (topical permethrin) to 8.37 (topical ivermectin). During the time of 3 months, the ES varied from 0.59 (topical permethrin) to 2.25 (intense pulsed light [IPL]). In terms of Demodex decrease rates, topical ivermectin, TTO, permethrin, IPL, and baby shampoo had achieved a nearly 100% decrease. The reported adverse events were mostly mild, without severe adverse events reported in any of the studies.
CONCLUSIONS
We found ivermectin (topical and systemic), ivermectin-metronidazole (topical), and TTO (topical) are promising anti-Demodex interventions. In addition to traditional pharmacotherapy, light therapies, especially IPL and skin cleansing, could also be considered as effective methods to control Demodex mite infestation.
Topics: Humans; Animals; Ivermectin; Mite Infestations; Metronidazole; Permethrin; Skin; Mites
PubMed: 36310014
DOI: 10.1159/000526296 -
International Journal of Antimicrobial... Aug 2022Invasive candidiasis is the most common fungal infection in patients attending health services and is associated with high mortality rates and prolonged hospital stay.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
Invasive candidiasis is the most common fungal infection in patients attending health services and is associated with high mortality rates and prolonged hospital stay. The aim of this review was to evaluate and compare efficacy and safety of antifungal agents for the treatment of candidemia.
METHODS
A systematic review with network meta-analysis (NMA), surface under the cumulative ranking analysis (SUCRA) and stochastic multicriteria acceptability analyses (SMAA) was performed (PROSPERO-CRD42020149264). Searches were conducted in PubMed and Scopus (Nov-2021). Randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of oral antifungals (any dose or regimen) on mycological cure, discontinuation rates and adverse events were included.
RESULTS
Overall, 13 trials (n=3632) were analysed. There were no significant differences between therapies for the efficacy outcomes; however, caspofungin (50-150 mg), rezafungin (200-400 mg) and micafungin (100-150 mg) had higher rates of clinical and mycological responses (SUCRA overall response >60%) and were considered the most promising therapies. Fluconazole (400 mg) rated worst for overall response (17%). Rezafungin (200-400 mg) and micafungin (100 mg) were associated with lower discontinuation rates (<40%). Conventional amphotericin B (0.6-0.7 mg/kg) was more likely to be discontinued (odds ratio [OR] 0.08; 95% credibility interval [CrI] 0.00-0.95 vs. caspofungin 150 mg) and may impair liver function (87%).
CONCLUSION
Echinocandins are recommended as first-line treatments for invasive candidiasis following a priority order of caspofungin then micafungin. Rezafungin, an echinocandin under development, represents a potential option that should be further investigated. Azoles and liposomal amphotericin B can be used as second-line treatments in cases of fungal resistance or hypersensitivity.
Topics: Antifungal Agents; Candidemia; Candidiasis, Invasive; Caspofungin; Echinocandins; Humans; Lipopeptides; Micafungin; Network Meta-Analysis
PubMed: 35691603
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2022.106614 -
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical... Jun 2020Although nebulized corticosteroids (NebCSs) are a key treatment option for young children with asthma or viral-induced wheezing (VIW), there are no uniform... (Review)
Review
Although nebulized corticosteroids (NebCSs) are a key treatment option for young children with asthma or viral-induced wheezing (VIW), there are no uniform recommendations on their best use. This systematic review aimed to clarify the role of NebCSs in children 5 years or younger for the management of acute asthma exacerbations, asthma maintenance therapy, and the treatment of VIW. Electronic databases were used to identify relevant English language articles with no date restrictions. Studies reporting efficacy data in children 5 years or younger, with a double-blind, placebo- or open-controlled, randomized design, and inclusion of 40 or more participants (no lower patient limit for VIW) were included. Ten articles on asthma exacerbation, 9 on asthma maintenance, and 7 on VIW were identified. Results showed NebCSs to be at least as efficacious as oral corticosteroids in the emergency room for the management of mild to moderate asthma exacerbations. In asthma maintenance, nebulized budesonide, the agent of focus in all trials analyzed, significantly reduced the risk of further asthma exacerbations compared with placebo, cromolyn sodium, and montelukast. Intermittent NebCS treatment of VIW was as effective as continuous daily treatment. In summary, NebCSs are effective and well tolerated in patients 5 years or younger for the management of acute and chronic asthma.
Topics: Administration, Inhalation; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Anti-Asthmatic Agents; Asthma; Budesonide; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Sounds
PubMed: 32006721
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaip.2020.01.042 -
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases May 2022Autoinflammatory type I interferonopathies, chronic atypical neutrophilic dermatosis with lipodystrophy and elevated temperature/proteasome-associated autoinflammatory...
The 2021 European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology/American College of Rheumatology points to consider for diagnosis and management of autoinflammatory type I interferonopathies: CANDLE/PRAAS, SAVI and AGS.
OBJECTIVE
Autoinflammatory type I interferonopathies, chronic atypical neutrophilic dermatosis with lipodystrophy and elevated temperature/proteasome-associated autoinflammatory syndrome (CANDLE/PRAAS), stimulator of interferon genes (STING)-associated vasculopathy with onset in infancy (SAVI) and Aicardi-Goutières syndrome (AGS) are rare and clinically complex immunodysregulatory diseases. With emerging knowledge of genetic causes and targeted treatments, a Task Force was charged with the development of 'points to consider' to improve diagnosis, treatment and long-term monitoring of patients with these rare diseases.
METHODS
Members of a Task Force consisting of rheumatologists, neurologists, an immunologist, geneticists, patient advocates and an allied healthcare professional formulated research questions for a systematic literature review. Then, based on literature, Delphi questionnaires and consensus methodology, 'points to consider' to guide patient management were developed.
RESULTS
The Task Force devised consensus and evidence-based guidance of 4 overarching principles and 17 points to consider regarding the diagnosis, treatment and long-term monitoring of patients with the autoinflammatory interferonopathies, CANDLE/PRAAS, SAVI and AGS.
CONCLUSION
These points to consider represent state-of-the-art knowledge to guide diagnostic evaluation, treatment and management of patients with CANDLE/PRAAS, SAVI and AGS and aim to standardise and improve care, quality of life and disease outcomes.
Topics: Autoimmune Diseases of the Nervous System; Erythema Nodosum; Fingers; Humans; Nervous System Malformations; Quality of Life; Rheumatology; Skin Diseases
PubMed: 35086813
DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-221814 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2021Eczema and food allergy are common health conditions that usually begin in early childhood and often occur together in the same people. They can be associated with an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Eczema and food allergy are common health conditions that usually begin in early childhood and often occur together in the same people. They can be associated with an impaired skin barrier in early infancy. It is unclear whether trying to prevent or reverse an impaired skin barrier soon after birth is effective in preventing eczema or food allergy.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objective To assess effects of skin care interventions, such as emollients, for primary prevention of eczema and food allergy in infants Secondary objective To identify features of study populations such as age, hereditary risk, and adherence to interventions that are associated with the greatest treatment benefit or harm for both eczema and food allergy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to July 2020: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched two trials registers and checked reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We contacted field experts to identify planned trials and to seek information about unpublished or incomplete trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs of skin care interventions that could potentially enhance skin barrier function, reduce dryness, or reduce subclinical inflammation in healthy term (> 37 weeks) infants (0 to 12 months) without pre-existing diagnosis of eczema, food allergy, or other skin condition were included. Comparison was standard care in the locality or no treatment. Types of skin care interventions included moisturisers/emollients; bathing products; advice regarding reducing soap exposure and bathing frequency; and use of water softeners. No minimum follow-up was required.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
This is a prospective individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, and primary analyses used the IPD dataset. Primary outcomes were cumulative incidence of eczema and cumulative incidence of immunoglobulin (Ig)E-mediated food allergy by one to three years, both measured by the closest available time point to two years. Secondary outcomes included adverse events during the intervention period; eczema severity (clinician-assessed); parent report of eczema severity; time to onset of eczema; parent report of immediate food allergy; and allergic sensitisation to food or inhalant allergen.
MAIN RESULTS
This review identified 33 RCTs, comprising 25,827 participants. A total of 17 studies, randomising 5823 participants, reported information on one or more outcomes specified in this review. Eleven studies randomising 5217 participants, with 10 of these studies providing IPD, were included in one or more meta-analysis (range 2 to 9 studies per individual meta-analysis). Most studies were conducted at children's hospitals. All interventions were compared against no skin care intervention or local standard care. Of the 17 studies that reported our outcomes, 13 assessed emollients. Twenty-five studies, including all those contributing data to meta-analyses, randomised newborns up to age three weeks to receive a skin care intervention or standard infant skin care. Eight of the 11 studies contributing to meta-analyses recruited infants at high risk of developing eczema or food allergy, although definition of high risk varied between studies. Durations of intervention and follow-up ranged from 24 hours to two years. We assessed most of this review's evidence as low certainty or had some concerns of risk of bias. A rating of some concerns was most often due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors or significant missing data, which could have impacted outcome measurement but was judged unlikely to have done so. Evidence for the primary food allergy outcome was rated as high risk of bias due to inclusion of only one trial where findings varied when different assumptions were made about missing data. Skin care interventions during infancy probably do not change risk of eczema by one to two years of age (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.31; moderate-certainty evidence; 3075 participants, 7 trials) nor time to onset of eczema (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.14; moderate-certainty evidence; 3349 participants, 9 trials). It is unclear whether skin care interventions during infancy change risk of IgE-mediated food allergy by one to two years of age (RR 2.53, 95% CI 0.99 to 6.47; 996 participants, 1 trial) or allergic sensitisation to a food allergen at age one to two years (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.69; 1055 participants, 2 trials) due to very low-certainty evidence for these outcomes. Skin care interventions during infancy may slightly increase risk of parent report of immediate reaction to a common food allergen at two years (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.61; low-certainty evidence; 1171 participants, 1 trial). However, this was only seen for cow's milk, and may be unreliable due to significant over-reporting of cow's milk allergy in infants. Skin care interventions during infancy probably increase risk of skin infection over the intervention period (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.77; moderate-certainty evidence; 2728 participants, 6 trials) and may increase risk of infant slippage over the intervention period (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.99; low-certainty evidence; 2538 participants, 4 trials) or stinging/allergic reactions to moisturisers (RR 2.24, 95% 0.67 to 7.43; low-certainty evidence; 343 participants, 4 trials), although confidence intervals for slippages and stinging/allergic reactions are wide and include the possibility of no effect or reduced risk. Preplanned subgroup analyses show that effects of interventions were not influenced by age, duration of intervention, hereditary risk, FLG mutation, or classification of intervention type for risk of developing eczema. We could not evaluate these effects on risk of food allergy. Evidence was insufficient to show whether adherence to interventions influenced the relationship between skin care interventions and risk of developing eczema or food allergy.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Skin care interventions such as emollients during the first year of life in healthy infants are probably not effective for preventing eczema, and probably increase risk of skin infection. Effects of skin care interventions on risk of food allergy are uncertain. Further work is needed to understand whether different approaches to infant skin care might promote or prevent eczema and to evaluate effects on food allergy based on robust outcome assessments.
Topics: Bias; Eczema; Emollients; Female; Filaggrin Proteins; Food Hypersensitivity; Humans; Hypersensitivity, Immediate; Immunoglobulin E; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Male; Milk Hypersensitivity; Skin Care; Skin Diseases, Infectious; Soaps
PubMed: 33545739
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013534.pub2 -
Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology... May 2023Trials have not directly compared biologics for the treatment of asthma. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Trials have not directly compared biologics for the treatment of asthma.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the relative efficacy of biologics in asthma.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to May 31, 2022 for randomized trials addressing biologic therapies for asthma. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to screen references, extract data, and assess risk of bias. We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach. We present dichotomous outcomes as absolute risk differences per 1000 patients and relative risk with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) and 95% CI.
RESULTS
We identified 64 trials, including 26,630 patients. For patients with eosinophilic asthma, tezepelumab (329 fewer exacerbations per 1000 [95% CI, 272.6-366.6 fewer]) and dupilumab (319.6 fewer exacerbations per 1000 [95% CI, 272.6-357.2 fewer]) reduce exacerbations compared with placebo (high certainty). Tezepelumab (MD, 0.24 L [95% CI, 0.16-0.32]) and dupilumab (0.25 L [95% CI, 0.21-0.29]) improve lung function compared with placebo (high certainty). Both tezepelumab (110.97 fewer hospital admissions per 1000 [95% CI, 94.53-120.56 fewer]) and dupilumab (97.27 fewer hospitalizations [4.11-124.67 fewer]) probably reduce hospital admissions compared with placebo (moderate certainty). For patients with low eosinophils, biologics probably do not improve asthma outcomes. For these patients, tezepelumab (MD, 0.1 L [95% CI, 0-0.19]) and dupilumab (MD, 0.1 L [95% CI, 0-0.20]) may improve lung function (low certainty).
CONCLUSION
Tezepelumab and dupilumab are effective at reducing exacerbations. For patients with low eosinophils, however, clinicians should probably be more judicious in using biologics, including tezepelumab, because they probably do not confer substantial benefit.
Topics: Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Asthma; Biological Products; Biological Therapy
PubMed: 36563746
DOI: 10.1016/j.anai.2022.12.018 -
Journal of the European Academy of... Apr 2023Generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) is a rare and highly heterogeneous skin disease, characterized by flares of neutrophilic pustules and erythema. As a rare disease...
BACKGROUND
Generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) is a rare and highly heterogeneous skin disease, characterized by flares of neutrophilic pustules and erythema. As a rare disease with few clinical studies and no standardized management approaches, there is a paucity of knowledge regarding GPP.
OBJECTIVES
Conduct a Delphi panel study to identify current evidence and gain advanced insights into GPP.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was used to identify published literature and develop statements categorized into four key domains: clinical course and flare definition; diagnosis; treatment goals; and holistic management. Statements were rated on a Likert scale by a panel of dermatologists in two rounds of online questionnaires; the threshold for consensus was agreement by ≥80%.
RESULTS
Twenty-one panellists reached consensus on 70.9%, 61.8%, 100.0% and 81.8% of statements in the 'clinical course and flare definition', 'diagnosis', 'treatment goals' and 'holistic management of GPP' domains, respectively. There was clear consensus on GPP being phenotypically, genetically and immunologically distinct from plaque psoriasis. Clinical course is highly variable, with an extensive range of complications. Clinical and histologic features supporting GPP diagnosis reached high levels of agreement, and although laboratory evaluations were considered helpful for diagnosis and monitoring disease severity, there was uncertainty around the value of individual tests. All acute and long-term treatment goals reached consensus, including rapid and sustained clearance of pustules, erythema, scaling and crust, clearance of skin lesions and prevention of new flares. Potential triggers, associated comorbidities and differential diagnoses achieved low rates of consensus, indicating that further evidence is needed.
CONCLUSIONS
Global consensus between dermatologists was reached on clinically meaningful goals for GPP treatment, on key features of GPP flares and on approaches for assessing disease severity and multidisciplinary management of patients. On this basis, we present a management algorithm for patients with GPP for use in clinical practice.
Topics: Humans; Consensus; Delphi Technique; Goals; Psoriasis; Disease Management; Disease Progression
PubMed: 36606566
DOI: 10.1111/jdv.18851