Search

Background and Objectives: (1) To identify patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) which have been used to screen and assess mental health symptoms in studies of youth with skin disease. (2) To critically appraise their evidence base in this population., Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted within PubMed and PsycINFO combining search terms for pediatric populations, dermatology, screening and assessment tools, and psychological and psychiatric conditions, to identify PROMs which screened or assessed for mental health symptoms in youth with skin disease. PROMs which had undergone validation within this population were assessed for quality and evidence base using the COSMIN risk of bias tool., Results: One hundred eleven PROMs which assess mental health symptoms in studies of youth with skin disease were identified. These included generic mental health scales which are extensively validated in different populations. Only one PROM, the "Skin Picking Scale-Revised" has undergone specific validation in youth with skin disease. This showed poor quality of evidence for content validity and therefore cannot be recommended., Conclusion: There is an urgent need to identify mental health problems early and treat proactively to improve outcomes in youth with skin disease. This review highlights the current lack of consensus around the best way to assess our patients. It is likely that existing generic mental health methods and PROMS will be appropriate for our needs. More work is required to examine the utility, feasibility, and acceptability of existing generic, validated mental health screening tools in youth with skin disease., (© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

To effectively study the skin and its pathology, various platforms have been used to date, with in vitro 3D skin models being considered the future gold standard. These models have generally been engineered from primary cell lines. However, their short life span leading to the use of various donors, imposes issues with genetic variation. Human pluripotent stem cell (hPSC)-technology holds great prospects as an alternative to the use of primary cell lines to study the pathophysiology of human skin diseases. This is due to their potential to generate an unlimited number of genetically identical skin models that closely mimic the complexity of in vivo human skin. During the past decade, researchers have therefore started to use human embryonic and induced pluripotent stem cells (hESC/iPSC) to derive skin resident-like cells and components. These have subsequently been used to engineer hPSC-derived 3D skin models. In this review, we focus on the advantages, recent developments, and future perspectives in using hPSCs as an alternative cell source for modelling human skin diseases in vitro., (© 2021 The Authors. Experimental Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

During the COVID-19 pandemic, rapid, real-world evidence is essential for the development of knowledge and subsequent public health response. In dermatology, provider-facing and patient-facing registries focused on COVID-19 have been important sources of research and new information aimed at guiding optimal patient care. The 7 dermatology registries included in this update now include more than 8000 case reports sourced from physicians and patients from countries all over the world., Competing Interests: Disclosure Dr L.E. French is president of the ILDS. Dr E.E. Freeman is principal investigator of the AAD/ILDS COVID-19 Dermatology Registry. The ILDS provides financial support for the AAD/ILDS registry. Dr E.E. Freeman is an author for UpToDate. Drs S.R. Feldman, C.E.M. Griffiths, S.K. Mahil, H.B. Naik, and C.H. Smith have received funding or support from and Drs L.E. French, A.D. Irvine, and P.I. Spuls have been consultants for AbbVie; Dr M.A. Lowes has served on the advisory board for AbbVie. Drs S.R. Feldman, L.E. French, C.E.M. Griffiths, S.K. Mahil, R. Sinclair, and C.H. Smith have received funding or support from Novartis. Drs S.R. Feldman, C.E.M. Griffiths, R. Sinclair, C.H. Smith, and D. Wall have received funding from Pfizer. Drs S.R. Feldman, S.K. Mahil, and C.H. Smith have received funding from and Drs A.D. Irvine and P.I. Spuls have been consultants for Sanofi. Drs S.R. Feldman, C.E.M. Griffiths, A.D. Irvine, S.K. Mahil, R. Sinclair, and D. Wall have received funding or honoraria from Eli Lily; Drs S.R. Feldman, L.E. French, C.E.M. Griffiths, S.K. Mahil, R. Sinclair, and D. Wall have received funding or honoraria from Janssen. Drs S.R. Feldman and C.E. M. Griffiths have received funding or support from BMS, Almirall, Amgen, Galderma, LEO Pharma, Stiefel GSK, and Sun Pharmaceuticals. Drs C.E.M. Griffiths and S.K. Mahil have received funding or support from Celgene and UCB Pharma. Dr C.E.M. Griffiths has received honoraria and/or research grants from MSD and Sandoz. Dr S.R. Feldman received research, speaking and/or consulting support from Alvotech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mylan, Ortho Dermatology, Samsung, Menlo, Helsinn, Arena, Forte, Merck, Regeneron, Novan, Qurient, National Biological Corporation, Caremark, Advance Medical, Suncare Research, Informa, UpToDate, and National Psoriasis Foundation. Dr S.R. Feldman is founder and majority owner of www.DrScore.com and is founder and part owner of Causa Research, a company dedicated to enhancing patients’ adherence to treatment. Dr L.E. French received speaking and/or consulting support from Galderma, Amgen, Leo Pharma, Biotest, and Pincell Srl. Dr H.B. Naik has received consulting fees from 23andme, Abbvie, and DAVA Oncology and advisory board fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and is an investigator for Pfizer. She also is an associate editor for JAMA Dermatology. Dr M.A. Lowes has served on the advisory boards for Abbvie, InflaRx, Janssen, and Viela Bio, and consulted for Almirall, BSN medical, Incyte, Janssen, Kymera, and XBiotech. Dr C.H. Smith is an investigator on Medical Research Council and Horizon 2020–funded consortia with industry partners (see psort.org.uk and biomap-imi.eu). Drs H.B. Naik (board member) and M.A. Lowes (vice president) are unpaid members of the US Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation. Drs L. Castelo-Soccio, K.M. Cordoro and I. Lara-Corrales are part of the PeDRA COVID-19 Response Task Force, a collaboration between the SPD and the PeDRA. Dr C. Flohr is President of the British Society for Paediatric Dermatology and Chief Investigator of the UK-Irish Atopic Eczema Systemic Therapy Register (A-STAR) (ISRCTN11210918). Dr C. Flohr and the patient-facing part of the SECURE-AD registry are supported by the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. Dr A.D. Irvine is the unpaid Chairman of National and International Skin Registry Solutions (NISR) Ltd, a not-for-profit charity dedicated to developing registries for patients with skin disease. NISR supports the Secure-AD registry. Dr A.D. Irvine is a co–principal investigator on the A-STAR and has been a consultant or speaker for Regeneron and LEO Pharma outside of the scope of the current work. Dr P.I. Spuls has received departmental independent research grants from a few pharmaceutical companies for the TREAT NL registry, is involved in performing clinical trials with many pharmaceutical industries that manufacture drugs used for the treatment of conditions like psoriasis and atopic dermatitis, for which financial compensation is paid to the department/hospital, and is chief investigator of a systemic and phototherapy atopic eczema registry (TREAT NL) for adults and children and one of the main investigators of the SECURE-AD registry. Drs D. Wall and R. Sinclair colead and are members of the steering committee, along with Dr N. Meah, of the SECURE-Alopecia registry. Drs R. Sinclair, D. Wall, and N. Meah are leading the development of the Global Registry of Alopecia Areata Disease Severity and Treatment Safety. Dr D. Wall is an employee of the charity NISR. Dr R. Sinclair also reports serving as a consultant or paid speaker for or participating in clinical trials sponsored by LEO Pharma, Amgen, Merck & Co, Celgene Corporation, Coherus BioSciences, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, MedImmune, GlaxoSmithKline, Cutanea, Samson Clinical, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Oncobiologics, F. Hoffman–La Roche, and Bayer AG and serves as the current president of the Australasian Hair and Wool Research Society. G.C. Chamberlin and D.E. McMahon and Drs E.A. Balogh and A.V. Marzano have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

How to integrate atopic dermatitis in the management of skin neglected tropical diseases in Sub-Saharan Africa? However, NTDs represent only 2%-4% of all skin diseases in SSA.[1] Geographical and financial hurdles make skin NTDs in SSA diseases of poverty affecting underserved people. Itch is a common denominator between skin NTDs, such as scabies and skin non NTDs such as AD. [Extracted from the article]

Summary: Background: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) play a critical role in standardizing and improving treatment outcomes based on the available evidence. It is unclear how many CPGs are available globally to assist clinicians in the management of patients with skin disease. Objectives: To search for and identify CPGs for dermatological conditions with the highest burden globally. Methods: We adapted a list of 12 dermatological conditions with the highest burden from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study 2019. A systematic literature search was done to identify CPGs published between October 2014 to October 2019. The scoping review was conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) framework. Results: A total of 226 CPGs were included. Melanoma had the greatest representation in the CPGs, followed by dermatitis and psoriasis. Skin cancers had a relatively high CPG representation but with lower GBD disease burden ranking. There was an uneven distribution by geographical region, with resource‐poor settings being under‐represented. The skin disease categories of the CPGs correlated weakly with the GBD disability‐adjusted life‐years metrics. Eighty‐nine CPGs did not have funding disclosures and 34 CPGs were behind a paywall. Conclusions: The global production of dermatology CPGs showed wide variation in geographical representation, article accessibility and reporting of funding. The number of skin disease CPGs were not commensurate with its disease burden. Future work will critically appraise the methodology and quality of dermatology CPGs and lead to the production of an accessible online resource summarizing these findings. What is already known about this topic? Skin‐related diseases are leading causes of disability and disease burden globally.Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are important to ensure appropriate standards of care for skin conditions.The number, distribution, accessibility and quality of dermatological CPGs available globally is unknown. What does this study add? This is the first scoping review to describe the distribution of CPGs for common dermatological conditions of highest burden available internationally.Inflammatory skin conditions and skin cancers represent a higher proportion of the number of CPGs produced, largely driven by high‐income countries.Further studies to evaluate the quality of CPGs in dermatology, and the development of CPGs in skin diseases predominantly affecting resource‐poor countries, are needed. Linked Comment: T.E. Sivesind and R.P. Dellavalle. Br J Dermatol 2021; 185:690–691. Plain language summary available online [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]