Background: The diagnosis of sarcoidosis is not standardized but is based on three major criteria: a compatible clinical presentation, finding nonnecrotizing granulomatous inflammation in one or more tissue samples, and the exclusion of alternative causes of granulomatous disease. There are no universally accepted measures to determine if each diagnostic criterion has been satisfied; therefore, the diagnosis of sarcoidosis is never fully secure. Methods: Systematic reviews and, when appropriate, meta-analyses were performed to summarize the best available evidence. The evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach and then discussed by a multidisciplinary panel. Recommendations for or against various diagnostic tests were formulated and graded after the expert panel weighed desirable and undesirable consequences, certainty of estimates, feasibility, and acceptability. Results: The clinical presentation, histopathology, and exclusion of alternative diagnoses were summarized. On the basis of the available evidence, the expert committee made 1 strong recommendation for baseline serum calcium testing, 13 conditional recommendations, and 1 best practice statement. All evidence was very low quality. Conclusions: The panel used systematic reviews of the evidence to inform clinical recommendations in favor of or against various diagnostic tests in patients with suspected or known sarcoidosis. The evidence and recommendations should be revisited as new evidence becomes available.

Pulmonary sarcoidosis presents substantial management challenges, with limited evidence on effective therapies and phenotypes. In the absence of definitive evidence, expert consensus can supply clinically useful guidance in medicine. An international panel of 26 experts participated in a Delphi process to identify consensus on pharmacological management in sarcoidosis with the development of preliminary recommendations.The modified Delphi process used three rounds. The first round focused on qualitative data collection with open-ended questions to ensure comprehensive inclusion of expert concepts. Rounds 2 and 3 applied quantitative assessments using an 11-point Likert scale to identify consensus.Key consensus points included glucocorticoids as initial therapy for most patients, with non-biologics (immunomodulators), usually methotrexate, considered in severe or extrapulmonary disease requiring prolonged treatment, or as a steroid-sparing intervention in cases with high risk of steroid toxicity. Biologic therapies might be considered as additive therapy if non-biologics are insufficiently effective or are not tolerated with initial biologic therapy, usually with a tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitor, typically infliximab.The Delphi methodology provided a platform to gain potentially valuable insight and interim guidance while awaiting evidenced-based contributions.

Fourteen patients were examined and determined to lack an adequate zone of attached gingiva in the mandibular incisor region. Each patient was treated on the left side of the mandible by placement of a free gingival graft on denuded bone and 12 of the 14 patients received a free gingival graft on retained periosteum in the right mandibular anterior region. Two patients were treated on the right side by either bone denudation or periosteal bed preparation without graft placement to permit histological evaluation of wound healing under these circumstances. Grafts were retained for time intervals from 1 week to 24 weeks. All patients were evaluated clinically for graft "take", graft healing, graft shrinkage, and graft mobility.

No abstract

Treatment of sarcoidosis recommendations are often based on clinical experience and expert opinion. However, there are an increasing number of studies which are providing evidence to support decisions regarding treatment. Areas covered: Several studies have identified factors associated with increased risk for organ failure or death ('danger'). There have been several studies focused on the role of treatment to improve quality of life for the patient. Sarcoidosis treatment often follows a progression, based on response. Corticosteroids remain the initial treatment of choice for most patients. Second-line therapy includes cytotoxic agents. Immunosuppressives such as methotrexate, azathioprine, leflunomide, and mycophenolate have all been reported as effective in sarcoidosis. Biologics and other agents are third-line therapy. The monoclonal antibodies directed against tumor necrosis factor have been shown to be particularly effective for advanced disease. Infliximab has been the most studied drug in this class. Newer treatments, including repository corticotropin injection and rituximab have been reported as effective in some cases. Expert commentary: In this review, we use the GRADE system to evaluate the currently available evidence and make recommendations regarding treatment.