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.

The evidence-and consensus-based guideline on atopic eczema was developed in accordance with the EuroGuiDerm Guideline and Consensus Statement Development Manual. Four consensus conferences were held between December 2020 and July 2021. Twenty-nine experts (including clinicians and patient representatives) from 12 European countries participated. This first part of the guideline includes general information on its scope and purpose, the health questions covered, target users and a methods section. It also provides guidance on which patients should be treated with systemic therapies, as well as recommendations and detailed information on each systemic drug. The systemic treatment

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

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.

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.

Rosacea is a chronic inflammatory dermatosis mainly affecting the cheeks, nose, chin, and forehead. Rosacea is characterized by recurrent episodes of flushing or transient erythema, persistent erythema, phymatous changes, papules, pustules, and telangiectasia. The eyes may also be involved. Due to rosacea affecting the face, it has a profound negative impact on quality of life, self-esteem, and well-being. In addition to general skin care, there are several approved treatment options available for addressing these features, both topical and systemic. For some features, intense pulse light, laser, and surgery are of value. Recent advances in fundamental scientific research have underscored the roles of the innate and adaptive immune systems as well as neurovascular dysregulation underlying the spectrum of clinical features of rosacea. Endogenous and exogenous stimuli may initiate and aggravate several pathways in patients with rosacea. This review covers the new phenotype-based diagnosis and classification system reflecting pathophysiology, and new and emerging treatment options and approaches. We address new topical and systemic formulations, as well as recent evidence on treatment combinations. In addition, ongoing studies investigating novel therapeutic interventions will be summarized.

IMPORTANCE Most clinical trials assessing systemic immunomodulatory treatments for patients with atopic dermatitis are placebo-controlled. OBJECTIVE To compare the effectiveness and safety of systemic immunomodulatory treatments for patients with atopic dermatitis in a systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database, Global Resource of Eczema Trials database, and clinical trial registries were searched from inception to October 28, 2019. STUDY SELECTION English-language randomized clinical trials of 8 weeks or more of treatment with systemic immunomodulatory medications for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis were included. Titles, abstracts, and articles were screened in duplicate. Of 10 324 citations, 39 trials were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Data were extracted in duplicate, and the review adhered to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for Network Meta-Analyses guidelines. Random-effects bayesian network meta-analyses were performed and certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Prespecified outcomes were change in signs of disease, symptoms, quality of life, itch, withdrawals, and serious adverse events. RESULTS A total of 39 trials with 6360 patients examining 20 medications and placebo were included. Most trials were conducted for adults receiving up to 16 weeks of therapy. Dupilumab, 300 mg every 2 weeks, was associated with improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score vs placebo (mean difference, 11.3-point reduction; 95% credible interval [CrI], 9.7-13.1 [high certainty]). Cyclosporine (standardized mean difference, −1.1; 95% CrI, −1.7 to −0.5 [low certainty]) and dupilumab (standardized mean difference, −0.9; 95% CrI, −1.0 to −0.8 [high certainty]) were similarly effective vs placebo in clearing clinical signs of atopic dermatitis and may be superior to methotrexate (standardized mean difference, −0.6; 95% CrI, −1.1 to 0.0 [low certainty]) and azathioprine (standardized mean difference, −0.4; 95% CrI, −0.8 to −0.1 [low certainty]). Several investigational medications for atopic dermatitis are promising, but data to date are limited to small early-phase trials. Safety analyses were limited by low event rates. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Dupilumab and cyclosporine may be more effective for up to 16 weeks of treatment than methotrexate and azathioprine for treating adult patients with atopic dermatitis. More studies directly comparing established and novel treatments beyond 16 weeks are needed and will be incorporated into future updates of this review.

The evidence-and consensus-based guideline on atopic eczema was developed in accordance with the EuroGuiDerm Guideline and Consensus Statement Development Manual. Four consensus conferences were held between December 2020 and July 2021. Twenty-nine experts (including clinicians and patient representatives) from 12 European countries participated. This second part of the guideline includes recommendations and detailed information on basic therapy with emollients and moisturizers, topical anti-inflammatory treatment, antimicrobial and antipruritic treatment and UV phototherapy. Furthermore, this part of the guideline covers techniques for avoiding provocation factors, as well as dietary Ó 2022 The Authors.