Maintenance treatment with a barrier-improving urea moisturizer on previous eczematous areas reduced the risk of relapse to approximately one third of that of no treatment.

BackgroundFacial redness contributes to impaired psychosocial functioning in rosacea patients and the only approved treatment for erythema is topical brimonidine gel 0.33%.ObjectivesTo evaluate patient‐reported outcomes, as well as efficacy and safety, in subjects with self‐perceived severe erythema treated with brimonidine gel 0.33% compared to vehicle.MethodsAn 8‐day multicenter, randomized study comparing once‐daily brimonidine gel 0.33% with vehicle gel using a facial redness questionnaire, subject satisfaction questionnaire and a patient diary of facial redness control to assess patient‐reported outcomes.ResultsOf the 92 included subjects with self‐perceived severe erythema, very few were satisfied with their appearance at baseline (4.2% brimonidine group, 0 vehicle group). On Day 8, significantly more brimonidine group subjects were satisfied with their facial appearance compared to vehicle group (36.9% vs. 21.5%; P < 0.05), with the overall treatment effect (69.6% vs. 40.4%; P < 0.01), and with the improvement in their facial redness (67.4% vs. 33.3%; P < 0.001). More brimonidine group subjects were able to control their facial redness daily (e.g. 83.0% vs. 38.9% on Day 1). On Day 8, significantly more brimonidine group subjects than vehicle group had at least a one‐grade improvement from baseline in the Clinician Erythema Assessment score (71.7% vs. 35.7%; P = 0.0011) and Patient Self‐Assessment score (76.1% vs. 47.6%; P = 0.004). More subjects in the brimonidine group (29.2%) reported treatment‐related adverse events than in the vehicle group (15.9%) but most were mild and transient.ConclusionsOnce‐daily brimonidine gel 0.33% allowed patients to rapidly control their facial redness and significantly improved patient‐reported outcomes in the treatment of persistent facial erythema of rosacea.

No abstract

Groups A, B, C and G streptococci were cultured from 63 consecutive in-patients recruited between November 1987 and April 1988 and monitored until the end of July 1988. Chronic leg ulcers were present in 34 patients. Group G was found in 34 patients, 25 of whom had pyoderma and 3 had sepsis. Six of the patients had no signs of clinical infection, and treatment with antibiotics was therefore withheld. Recurrent phlegmon or erysipelas developed in 2 of 28 patients with clinical Group G infections. Erysipelas developed some 1-7 months later in 3 of the 6 patients who were not initially treated. No significant difference in severity or additional medical conditions was found between the patients with either Group G or Group A streptococci. In comparison, data on all streptococcal cultures at the Department indicated that Group G was isolated 2.6 times as often as Group A streptococci for the in-patients, compared with 1.1 for all patients seen. It is concluded that Group G streptococcal skin infections must be regarded with the same clinical vigilance as Group A infections.