The treatment of children with psoriasis, atopic dermatitis (AD), pityriasis lichenoides, and scleroderma poses a therapeutic problem because all therapeutic options are associated with numerous side effects. Therefore ultraviolet A and B (UVA and UVB) phototherapy is presented as a possible alternative to some of these therapies, primarily topical and systemic corticosteroids, in children. Our results in treating children with phototherapy and psoralen plus UVA (PUVA) bath phototherapy over the past 5 years are reported. UVB therapy (TL01) was used in 20 psoriatic children (6 boys, 14 girls; ages 6-14 years) during the stage of disease exacerbation and in 9 children (3 boys, 6 girls; ages 8-16 years) with pityriasis lichenoides. Combined UVA/UVB phototherapy was applied in 21 AD children (7 boys, 14 girls; ages 4-15 years). Photochemotherapy with local application of a PUVA bath was used in six children (2 boys, 4 girls; ages 9-16 years) with circumscribed scleroderma and in one girl with systemic scleroderma. All children received short courses of phototherapy with either no maintenance or short maintenance. All three therapeutic protocols resulted in a certain degree of improvement in most of the study patients. None of the patients exhibited any early phototherapy side effects. We conclude that phototherapy and PUVA bath are valuable and safe therapeutic options for selected children who do not respond to other treatments.

Although there was no statistical trend between the duration of terbinafine treatment within the groups for complete cure at the end of study, there was a positive correlation between the daily dose of terbinafine (mg x kg(-1)) and complete cure. Terbinafine therapy for 6 weeks could represent an alternative to griseofulvin for the treatment of Microsporum tinea capitis. However, further clinical trials are required in order to optimize the dose regimen to allow higher cure rates to be reached.

No abstract

Background Anogenital warts ( AGW ) can cause economic burden on healthcare systems and are associated with emotional, psychological and physical issues. Objective To provide guidance to physicians on the diagnosis and management of AGW . Methods Fourteen global experts on AGW developed guidance on the diagnosis and management of AGW in an effort to unify international recommendations. Guidance was developed based on published international and national AGW guidelines and an evaluation of relevant literature published up to August 2016. Authors provided expert opinion based on their clinical experiences. Results A checklist for a patient's initial consultation is provided to help physicians when diagnosing AGW to get the relevant information from the patient in order to manage and treat the AGW effectively. A number of frequently asked questions are also provided to aid physicians when communicating with patients about AGW . Treatment of AGW should be individualized and selected based on the number, size, morphology, location, and keratinization of warts, and whether they are new or recurrent. Different techniques can be used to treat AGW including ablation, immunotherapy and other topical therapies. Combinations of these techniques are thought to be more effective at reducing AGW recurrence than monotherapy. A simplified algorithm was created suggesting patients with 1–5 warts should be treated with ablation followed by immunotherapy. Patients with >5 warts should use immunotherapy for 2 months followed by ablation and a second 2‐month course of immunotherapy. Guidance for daily practice situations and the subsequent action that can be taken, as well as an algorithm for treatment of large warts, were also created. Conclusion The guidance provided will help physicians with the diagnosis and management of AGW in order to improve the health and quality of life of patients with AGW .

Epididymo-orchitis is a commonly encountered condition with a reported incidence of 2.45 cases per 1000 men in the United Kingdom. This 2016 International Union against Sexually Transmitted Infections guideline provides up-to-date advice on the management of this condition. It describes the aetiology, clinical features and potential complications, as well as presenting diagnostic considerations and clear recommendations for management and follow-up. Early diagnosis and management are essential, as serious complications can include abscess formation, testicular infarction and infertility. Recent epidemiological evidence suggests that selection of fluoroquinolone antibiotics with anti-Chlamydial activity is more appropriate in the management of sexually active men in the over 35 years age group.

Molluscum contagiosum is a benign viral epidermal infection associated with high risk of transmission. The guideline is focused on the sexually transmitted molluscum contagiosum. The diagnosis is clinical with characteristic individual lesions, termed ‘mollusca’, seen as dome‐shaped, smooth‐surfaced, pearly, firm, skin‐coloured, pink, yellow or white papules, 2 ‐ 5 mm in diameter with central umbilication. Dermoscopy may facilitate diagnosis. Therapeutic options are numerous, including physical treatments (cautery, curettage and cryotherapy), topical chemical treatments (e.g. podophyllotoxin and imiquimod) or waiting for spontaneous resolution in immunocompetent patients. In pregnancy, it is safe to use physical procedures (e.g. cryotherapy). Immunosuppressed patients develop severe and recalcitrant molluscum lesions that may require treatment with cidofovir, imiquimod or interferon. Patients with molluscum contagiosum infection should be offered to be screened for other sexually transmitted infections.

No abstract

Background Superficial fungal infections are common. It is important to confirm the clinical diagnosis by mycological laboratory methods before initiating systemic antifungal treatment, especially as antifungal sensitivity and in vitro susceptibility may differ between different genera and species. For many years, the gold standard for diagnosis of superficial fungal infections has been direct fungal detection in the clinical specimen (microscopy) supplemented by culturing. Lately, newer molecular based methods for fungal identification have been developed. Objective This study was initiated to focus on the current usage of mycological diagnostics for superficial fungal infections by dermatologists. It was designed to investigate whether it was necessary to differentiate between initial diagnostic tests and those used at treatment follow‐up in specific superficial fungal infections. Methods An online questionnaire was distributed among members of the EADV mycology Task Force and other dermatologists with a special interest in mycology and nail disease. Results The survey was distributed to 62 dermatologists of whom 38 (61%) completed the whole survey, 7 (11%) partially completed and 17 (27%) did not respond. Nearly, all respondents (82–100%) said that ideally they would use the result of direct microscopy (or histology) combined with a genus/species directed treatment of onychomycosis, dermatophytosis, Candida‐ and Malassezia‐related infections. The majority of the dermatologists used a combination of clinical assessment and direct microscopy for treatment assessment and the viability of the fungus was considered more important at this visit than when initiating the treatment. Molecular based methods were not available for all responders. Conclusion The available diagnostic methods are heterogeneous and their usage differs between different practices as well as between countries. The survey confirmed that dermatologists find it important to make a mycological diagnosis, particularly prior to starting oral antifungal treatment in order to confirm the diagnose and target the therapy according to genus and species.