Search

Use of medical devices (MDs), that is, glucose sensors and insulin pumps, in patients with Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1D) has proven an enormous advantage for disease control. Adverse skin reactions from these MDs may however hamper compliance. The objective of this study was to systematically review and analyse studies assessing the prevalence and incidence of dermatitis, including allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) related to MDs used in patients with T1D and to compare referral routes and the clinical investigation routines between clinics being part of the European Environmental and Contact Dermatitis Research Group (EECDRG). A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane databases of full‐text studies reporting incidence and prevalence of dermatitis in persons with T1D using MDs was conducted until December 2021. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale was used to assess study quality. The inventory performed at EECRDG clinics focused on referral routes, patient numbers and the diagnostic process. Among the 3145 screened abstracts, 39 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Sixteen studies included data on children only, 14 studies were on adults and nine studies reported data on both children and adults. Participants were exposed to a broad range of devices. Skin reactions were rarely specified. It was found that both the diagnostic process and referral routes differ in different centres. Further data on the prevalence of skin reactions related to MDs in individuals with T1D is needed and particularly studies where the skin reactions are correctly diagnosed. A correct diagnosis is delayed or hampered by the fact that, at present, the actual substances within the MDs are not declared, are changed without notice and the commercially available test materials are not adequately updated. Within Europe, routines for referral should be made more standardized to improve the diagnostic procedure when investigating patients with possible ACD from MDs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic hand eczema (CHE) is a very common skin disease among the European population. It causes itch and pain and, in more severe cases, seriously impairs hand functioning at work and in private life. Objectives: To explore perspectives of people with lived experience on CHE‐related problems, wishes and goals. Methods: Following a qualitative approach, we conducted topic‐guided interviews in five European countries and applied template analysis to identify recurrent themes among patients with CHE. Results: We interviewed 60 patients in seven outpatient dermatological and occupational medicine clinics in Croatia, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain. Five main themes were identified: (1) knowledge about the disease and its course, (2) preventive behaviour, (3) hand eczema therapy, (4) impact on everyday life and (5) attitudes towards CHE and healthcare. Participants did not feel well informed about CHE, especially about causes, triggers and treatment options. Preventive measures were experienced as more or less effective but also cumbersome. Experiences with therapy were diverse. Treatment satisfaction depended on the results and on the perceived support from the treatment teams. Participants found it important to be taken seriously, to receive practical advice, to try out additional treatments or examinations, find new hope and have occupational perspectives. They wished that others could better understand the physical and emotional burden of CHE. Patient support groups were not mentioned. Participants found it important to learn to take care of themselves and accept life with CHE. Conclusions: Due to its annoying symptoms, high visibility and impaired functioning at work and in private life, CHE has a high emotional and social impact. Some people may require support to learn coping with CHE and its prevention. Patients wish for information about causes and triggers. They value physicians who listen to them and keep looking for solutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Paediatric atopic dermatitis (AD) can be burdensome, affecting mental health and impairing quality of life for children and caregivers. Comprehensive guidelines exist for managing paediatric AD, but practical guidance on using systemic therapy is limited, particularly for new therapies including biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, recently approved for various ages in this indication. Objectives: This expert consensus aimed to provide practical recommendations within this advancing field to enhance clinical decision‐making on the use of these and other systemics for children and adolescents aged ≥2 years with moderate‐to‐severe AD. Methods: Nineteen physicians from Northern Europe were selected for their expertise in managing childhood AD. Using a two‐round Delphi process, they reached full or partial consensus on 37 statements. Results: Systemic therapy is recommended for children aged ≥2 years with a clear clinical diagnosis of severe AD and persistent disease uncontrolled after optimizing non‐systemic therapy. Systemic therapy should achieve long‐term disease control and reduce short‐term interventions. Recommended are cyclosporine A for short‐term use (all ages) and dupilumab or methotrexate for long‐term use (ages ≥6 years). Consensus was not reached on the best long‐term systemics for children aged 2–6 years, although new systemic therapies will likely become favourable: New biologics and JAK inhibitors will soon be approved for this age group, and more trial and real‐world data will become available. Conclusions: This article makes practical recommendations on the use of systemic AD treatments for children and adolescents, to supplement international and regional guidelines. It considers the systemic medication that was available for children and adolescents with moderate‐to‐severe AD at the time this consensus project was done: azathioprine, cyclosporine A, dupilumab, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil and oral glucocorticosteroids. We focus on the geographically similar Northern European countries, whose healthcare systems, local preferences for AD management and reimbursement structures nonetheless differ significantly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]