Summary Background The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study provides an annually updated resource to study disease‐related morbidity and mortality worldwide. Objectives Here we present the burden estimates for atopic dermatitis (AD), including data from inception of the GBD project in 1990 until 2017. Methods Data on the burden of AD were obtained from the GBD Study. Results Atopic dermatitis (AD) ranks 15th among all nonfatal diseases and has the highest disease burden among skin diseases as measured by disability‐adjusted life‐years (DALYs). Overall, the global DALY rate for AD in 1990 was 121 [95% uncertainty interval (UI) 65·4–201] and remained similar in 2017 at 123 (95% UI 66·8–205). The three countries with the highest DALY rates of AD were Sweden (327, 95% UI 178–547), the UK (284, 95% UI 155–478) and Iceland (277, 95% UI 149–465), whereas Uzbekistan (85·1, 95% UI 45·2–144), Armenia (85·1, 95% UI 45·8–143) and Tajikistan (85·1, 95% UI 46·1–143) ranked lowest. Conclusions The global prevalence rate of AD has remained stable from 1990 to 2017. However, the distribution of AD by age groups shows a bimodal curve with the highest peak in early childhood, decreasing in prevalence among young adults, and a second peak in middle‐aged and older populations. We also found a moderate positive correlation between a country’s gross domestic product and disease burden. GBD data confirm the substantial worldwide burden of AD, which has remained stable since 1990 but shows significant geographical variation. Lifestyle factors, partially linked to affluence, are likely important disease drivers. However, the GBD methodology needs to be developed further to incorporate environmental risk factors, such as ultraviolet exposure, to understand better the geographical and age‐related variations in disease burden.

Most moisturisers showed some beneficial effects, producing better results when used with active treatment, prolonging time to flare, and reducing the number of flares and amount of topical corticosteroids needed to achieve similar reductions in eczema severity. We did not find reliable evidence that one moisturiser is better than another.

Funding informationNo support was given by any medical company for development of this document. All meetings were virtual meetings, therefore there were no costs. All participants in the working group filled in a structured form to declare financial or non-financial interests. Disclosures are given in the Supporting information. The Guidelines were approved by the executive committee of the ESCD in

SummaryBackgroundRosacea is a common chronic facial dermatosis. Classification of rosacea has evolved from subtyping to phenotyping.ObjectivesTo update our systematic review on interventions for rosacea.MethodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index and ongoing trials registers (March 2018) for randomized controlled trials. Study selection, data extraction, risk‐of‐bias assessment and analyses were carried out independently by two authors. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) was used to assess certainty of evidence.ResultsWe included 152 studies (46 were new), comprising 20 944 participants. Topical interventions included brimonidine, oxymetazoline, metronidazole, azelaic acid, ivermectin and other topical treatments. Systemic interventions included oral antibiotics, combinations with topical treatments or other systemic treatments. Several studies evaluated laser or light‐based treatment. We present the most current evidence for rosacea management based on a phenotype‐led approach.ConclusionsFor reducing temporarily persistent erythema there was high‐certainty evidence for topical brimonidine and moderate certainty for topical oxymetazoline; for erythema and mainly telangiectasia there was low‐to‐moderate‐certainty evidence for laser and intense pulsed light therapy. For reducing papules/pustules there was high‐certainty evidence for topical azelaic acid and topical ivermectin; moderate‐to‐high‐certainty evidence for doxycycline 40 mg modified release (MR) and isotretinoin; and moderate‐certainty evidence for topical metronidazole, and topical minocycline and oral minocycline being equally effective as doxycycline 40 mg MR. There was low‐certainty evidence for tetracycline and low‐dose minocycline. For ocular rosacea, there was moderate‐certainty evidence that oral omega‐3 fatty acids were effective and low‐certainty evidence for ciclosporin ophthalmic emulsion and doxycycline.

Background Atopic eczema (AE, atopic dermatitis) is one of the most common non‐communicable inflammatory skin diseases affecting 1–5% of the adult population in Europe with marked impairment in quality of life. In spite of great progress in understanding the pathophysiology of disturbed skin barrier and immune deviation, AE still represents a problem in daily clinical practice. Furthermore, the true impact of AE on individual suffering is often not recognized. Objectives With a large European study, we wanted to provide insights into the actual suffering and individual burden of disease in adult patients with AE. Methods A total of 1189 adult patients (18–87 years, 56% female) with moderate to severe AE were recruited in nine European countries by dermatologists or allergists together with the help of patient organizations. A computer‐assisted telephone interview was performed by experienced interviewers between October 2017 and March 2018. The following instruments were used to assess severity or measure quality of life: Patient‐Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS‐D) and a newly developed Atopic Eczema Score of Emotional Consequences (AESEC). Patients were also asked to self‐assess the severity of their disease. Results Despite current treatment, 45% of participants still had actual moderate to very severe AE in POEM. Due to their skin disease, 57% missed at least 1 day of work in the preceding year. DLQI showed moderate to extremely large impairment in 55%. According to HADS‐D, 10% scored on or above the threshold of eight points with signs of depressive symptoms. Assessed with AESEC, 57% were emotionally burdened with feelings such as ‘trying to hide the eczema’, ‘feeling guilty about eczema’, having ‘problems with intimacy’ and more. Of persons actually suffering from severe AE, 88% stated that their AE at least partly compromised their ability to face life. Conclusions This real‐life study shows that adults with a moderate to severe form of AE are suffering more than what would be deemed acceptable. There is a need for increased awareness of this problem among healthcare professionals, policymakers and the general public to support research in the development of new and more effective treatments and provide access to better and affordable health care for affected patients.

IntroductionThere are numerous new systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis in various stages of development and most are being compared with placebo rather than active comparators. In order to understand the relative efficacy and safety of existing and new treatments for atopic dermatitis, robust mixed comparisons (ie, direct and indirect) would be beneficial. To address this gap, this protocol describes methods for a systematic review and network meta-analysis of systemic treatments for atopic dermatitis.Methods and analysisWe will update the search of a previous systematic review, including searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database and the Global Resource of EczemA Trials database in addition to clinical trial protocol registries. Title, abstract and full paper screening as well as data extraction will be conducted in duplicate by independent researchers. Primary outcomes include efficacy with regards to clinician-reported signs and patient-reported symptoms and safety with regards to withdrawal from treatment due to adverse events and the occurrence of serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will include change in quality of life and itch severity. Where possible and appropriate, network meta-analysis will be performed for each outcome using a random-effects model within a Bayesian framework. If appropriate, the review will be transitioned to a living review with continuous updating of the analysis.Ethics and disseminationDissemination in a peer-reviewed scientific journal is planned.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018088112; Pre-results.

BackgroundThe number of eHealth interventions in the management of chronic diseases such as atopic dermatitis (AD) is growing. Despite promising results, the implementation and use of these interventions is limited.ObjectivesThis study aimed to assess opinions of the most important stakeholders influencing the implementation and use of eHealth services in daily dermatology practice.MethodsThe perspectives of health care professionals and patients towards the implementation and use of eHealth services in daily practice were assessed by using a mixed method design. A cross-sectional survey based on the eHealth implementation toolkit (eHit) was conducted to explore factors influencing the adoption of eHealth interventions offering the possibility of e-consultations, Web-based monitoring, and Web-based self-management training among dermatologists and dermatology nurses. The perspectives of patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) regarding the use of eHealth services were discussed in an online focus group.ResultsHealth care professionals (n=99) and patients (n=9) acknowledged the value of eHealth services and were willing to use these digital tools in daily dermatology practice. Key identified barriers (statements with <50% of the participants scoring totally agree or agree) in the implementation and adoption of eHealth interventions included concerns about the availability (12/99, 12%) and allocation (14/99, 14%) of resources, financial aspects (26/99, 26%), reliability, security, and confidentially of the intervention itself (29/99, 29%), and the lack of education and training (6/99, 6%).ConclusionsHealth care professionals and patients acknowledge the benefits arising from the implementation and use of eHealth services in daily dermatology practice. However, some important barriers were identified that might be useful in addressing the implementation strategy in order to enhance the implementation success of eHealth interventions in dermatology.

SIGNIFICANCEAtopic eczema is a skin disease with a huge impact on the everyday lives of affected patients' and their families, but little awareness in the general population. This study including 1,189 people with atopic eczema living in 9 Euro pean countries found that extra out-of-pocket spending due to the atopic eczema is another setback with a mean amount of €927 spent by every patient per year. Out-of-pocket costs are a substantial burden in atopic eczema and much higher than in other chronic diseases. These costs should always be taken into account in individual as well as economic assessments of the disease.Atopic eczema is one of the most common non-communicable inflammatory skin diseases, and has a huge socioeconomic impact. Studies on the everyday economic impact of atopic eczema on patients, however, are limited. To estimate the annual extra out-of-pocket spending due to atopic eczema among patients in Europe, a cross-sectional study using computer-assisted phone interviewing of patients with atopic eczema was performed in 9 European countries. A total of 1,189 patients (56% women) with atopic eczema, who were either eligible for, or on, systemic treatment, participated in the study between October 2017 and March 2018. Mean extra spending on everyday necessities was €927 per patient per year for healthcare expenses, and this figure was slightly, but not statistically significantly, influenced by the severity of atopic eczema. Emollients and moisturizers accounted for the highest monthly costs, followed by medication that was not reimbursed, doctors' and hospital costs. Atopic eczema-related out-of-pocket costs pose a substantial burden for affected individuals, are higher than in other chronic diseases, and should always be included in economic assessments of the impact of this disease.