Patients with moderate to severe psoriasis are undertreated. To solve this persistent problem, the consensus programme was performed to define goals for treatment of plaque psoriasis with systemic therapy and to improve patient care. An expert consensus meeting and a collaborative Delphi procedure were carried out. Nineteen dermatologists from different European countries met for a face-to-face discussion and defined items through a four-round Delphi process. Severity of plaque psoriasis was graded into mild and moderate to severe disease. Mild disease was defined as body surface area (BSA) ≤10 and psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) ≤10 and dermatology life quality index (DLQI) ≤10 and moderate to severe psoriasis as (BSA > 10 or PASI > 10) and DLQI > 10. Special clinical situations may change mild psoriasis to moderate to severe including involvement of visible areas or severe nail involvement. For systemic therapy of plaque psoriasis two treatment phases were defined: (1) induction phase as the treatment period until week 16; however, depending on the type of drug and dose regimen used, this phase may be extended until week 24 and (2) maintenance phase for all drugs was defined as the treatment period after the induction phase. For the definition of treatment goals in plaque psoriasis, the change of PASI from baseline until the time of evaluation (ΔPASI) and the absolute DLQI were used. After induction and during maintenance therapy, treatment can be continued if reduction in PASI is ≥75%. The treatment regimen should be modified if improvement of PASI is <50%. In a situation where the therapeutic response improved ≥50% but <75%, as assessed by PASI, therapy should be modified if the DLQI is >5 but can be continued if the DLQI is ≤5. This programme defines the severity of plaque psoriasis for the first time using a formal consensus of 19 European experts. In addition, treatment goals for moderate to severe disease were established. Implementation of treatment goals in the daily management of psoriasis will improve patient care and mitigate the problem of undertreatment. It is planned to evaluate the implementation of these treatment goals in a subsequent programme involving patients and physicians.

The use of antibacterial sulfonamides, anticonvulsant agents, oxicam NSAIDs, allopurinol, chlormezanone, and corticosteroids is associated with large increases in the risk of Stevens-Johnson syndrome or toxic epidermal necrolysis. But for none of the drugs does the excess risk exceed five cases per million users per week.

No abstract

Background: It was proposed that Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis differed from erythema multiforme majus by the pattern and localization of skin lesions. Objective: To evaluate the validity of this clinical separation.

International guidelines are intended to be adapted to national or regional circumstances (regulatory approval, availability and reimbursement of treatments).

Background. Assessment methods for atopic dermatitis (AD) are not standardized, and therapeutic studies are difficult to interpret. Aims. To obtain a consensus on assessment methods in AD and to use a statistical method to develop a composite severity index.Methods. Consensus definitions were given for items used in the scoring system (extent, intensity, subjective) and illustrated for intensity items. Slides were reviewed to address within and between-observer variability by a group of 10 trained clinicians, and data were statistically evaluated with a two way analysis of variance. Two variants of an assessment system were compared in 88 patients at 5 different institutions. Data were analyzed using principal-component analysis. Results. For 5 intensity items studied (erythema, edema/papulation, oozing/crusts, excoriations, lichenification), within- and between-observer variability was good overall, except for edema/papulation which was difficult to assess with slides. In the series of 88 patients, principal-component analysis allowed to extract two unrelated components: the first one accounting for 33% of total variance was interpreted as a ‘severity’ component; the second one, accounting for 18% of variance, was interpreted as a ‘profile’ component distinguishing patients with mostly erythema and subjective symptoms and those with mostly lichenification and dryness and lower subjective symptoms. Of the two evaluation systems used, the one using the rule of nine to assess extent was found more workable than the one using a distribution × intensity product. A scoring index (SCORAD) combining extent, severity and subjective symptoms was mathematically derived from the first system and showed a normal distribution of the population studied. Conclusion. The final choice for the evaluation system was mostly made based on simplicity and easy routine use in outpatient clinics. Based on mathematical appreciation of weights of the items used in the assessment of AD, extent and subjective symptoms account for around 20% each of the total score, intensity items representing 60%. The so-designed composite index SCORAD needs to be further tested in clinical trials.

No abstract

No abstract