Search

The diagnosis of eczema ('dermatitis') is mostly clinical and depends on the clinical history and exploratory objective findings (primary lesions, patterns). Contact dermatitis remains as an important condition in the group of eczematous disorders, with important socioeconomic and occupational relevance. Although irritant and allergic contact dermatitis have a different pathogenesis, both are characterized by a rather typical morphology, are triggered by external factors and tend to occur primarily in the area of contact with the exogenous agent. In addition, allergic and irritant dermatitis may also co‐exist. The importance of diagnosing contact dermatitis, especially when allergic in nature, is both due to the possibility of avoiding the trigger, and due to its role in aggravating other skin conditions. Nevertheless, the heterogeneity of clinical presentations in daily practice may pose an important challenge for the suspicion and correct diagnosis of contact dermatitis. Furthermore, other conditions, with different pathogenesis and treatment, may clinically simulate contact dermatitis. The Task Force aims to conduct a review of the unifying clinical features of contact dermatitis and characterize its main clinical phenotypes, and its simulators, in order to contribute to an early suspicion or recognition of contact dermatitis and enable a correct differential diagnosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Baricitinib treatment in adults with moderate‐to‐severe atopic dermatitis (AD) has demonstrated rapid improvements in itch as well as AD sign severity and affected body surface area as assessed by the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) total score, whether administered as monotherapy or in combination with topical corticosteroids (TCS). As EASI clinical signs differ in time course and associated antecedents, the effects of baricitinib on each individual clinical sign are of interest. Objectives: In this post hoc analysis, we aimed to investigate the effects of baricitinib on individual EASI subscores, namely excoriation, oedema/papulation, erythema and lichenification, in both monotherapy and TCS combination therapy trials. Methods: We analysed the percent change from baseline in individual EASI subscores from three phase‐III, double‐blind, 16‐week trials of baricitinib in monotherapy (BREEZE‐AD1/BREEZE‐AD2) and TCS combination therapy (BREEZE‐AD7) cohorts via mixed model repeated measures (MMRM). Results: Baricitinib 4 mg showed rapid and sustained improvements in all four clinical signs in both cohorts. Significant effects emerged at week 1 for excoriation, oedema/papulation and erythema scores in monotherapy (p < 0.001) and TCS combination therapy (p < 0.001, p < 0.01, p < 0.001), plateaued at week 4, and remained significant versus placebo through week 16. The effect on lichenification scores also emerged early, at week 1 in monotherapy (p < 0.05) and week 2 in combination therapy (p < 0.001), with scores continuously improving without a clear plateau. Effect magnitude was highest in excoriation scores, exhibiting near‐maximal reduction in week 1 of monotherapy and remaining highest across all timepoints in combination therapy. Conclusions: Rapid and sustained improvements were observed across clinical signs of inflammation and particularly on excoriation following baricitinib treatment. Our findings suggest that selective inhibition of janus kinases 1 and 2 leads to rapid and sustained control of skin inflammation, and that rapid reductions in itch translate into early disruption of the itch‐scratch cycle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Dupilumab is used for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD). Approximately one third of AD patients develop a dupilumab‐associated ocular surface disease (DAOSD), of which the pathomechanism is poorly understood. This study aimed at investigating inflammatory markers in tear fluids of patients on dupilumab therapy. Methods: Tear fluids were collected from AD patients with DAOSD (ADwDAOSD), AD patients without DAOSD (ADw/oDAOSD), and non‐AD patients before and during dupilumab therapy, and analyzed using a specialized proteomic approach quantifying inflammatory markers. The ocular surface microbiome was determined by next generation sequencing technology. Results: Upon dupilumab therapy, an upregulation of 31 inflammatory markers was observed in DAOSD tear fluids compared to baseline in AD patients. While IL‐12B was upregulated in both ADwDAOSD and ADw/oDAOSD groups, the pattern of inflammatory markers significantly differed between groups and over time. In the ADwDAOSD group, a shift from a mixed Th2/Th17 pattern at baseline toward a Th1/Th17 profile under dupilumab was observed. Furthermore, an upregulation of remodeling and fibrosis markers was seen in DAOSD. Semantic map and hierarchical cluster analyses of baseline marker expression revealed four clusters distinguishing between AD and non‐AD as well as ADwDAOSD and ADw/oDAOSD patient groups. In a pilot study, dupilumab therapy was associated with a decrease in richness of the ocular surface microbiome. Conclusions: DAOSD is characterized by a Th1/Th17 cytokine profile and an upregulation of markers known to promote remodeling and fibrosis. The expression pattern of inflammatory markers in tear fluids at baseline might serve as a prognostic factor for DAOSD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Summary: The present S3 guideline was created based on the European English‐language S3 guideline, with special consideration given to the medical conditions in the German‐speaking region, and with additions from the previous German‐language version, in accordance with the criteria of the AWMF. This second part of the guideline addresses the systemic therapy of atopic dermatitis (AD). It covers topics such as the indication for systemic therapy in children, adolescents, and adult patients with AD. Furthermore, it addresses all medications approved for AD, such as the biologics dupilumab and tralokinumab, the Janus kinase inhibitors abrocitinib, baricitinib, and upadacitinib, as well as conventional immunosuppressive therapies with systemic glucocorticosteroids and ciclosporin. Additionally, it discusses systemic off‐label therapies. The first part of the guideline, published separately, includes the definition and diagnostic aspects of AD, describes topical therapy, non‐drug therapy approaches, and addresses aspects related to special patient groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Summary: This S3 guideline was created based on the European S3 guideline, with special consideration of the medical conditions in the German‐speaking region and incorporating additions from the previous German‐language version. The interdisciplinary guideline commission consisted of representatives from the German Dermatological Society, the Professional Association of German Dermatologists, the Austrian Society of Dermatology and Venereology, the Swiss Society of Dermatology and Venereology, the German Society for Allergology and Clinical Immunology, the German Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, the Professional Association of Pediatricians and Adolescent Medicine, the Society for Pediatric Allergology and Environmental Medicine, the German Society for Pediatric Rehabilitation and Prevention, the German Society for Psychosomatic Medicine and Medical Psychotherapy, the German Network for Health Services Research, the German Eczema Association and the German Allergy and Asthma Association. This first part of the guideline focuses on the definition and diagnostic aspects of atopic dermatitis (AD), addressing topical therapy as well as non‐pharmacological treatment approaches such as UV therapy, psychoeducational therapy, dietary interventions for AD, allergen immunotherapy for AD, and complementary medicine. This part of the guideline also covers specific aspects of AD in children and adolescents, during pregnancy and lactation, and in the context of family planning. Additionally, it addresses occupational aspects of AD and highlights the perspective of the patients. The second part of the guideline, published separately, addresses the systemic therapy of AD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: It is still unknown whether eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) patients with localized disease are different from those with extended disease. Methods: We evaluated prospectively included patients in the Swiss EoE cohort. Data on all patients with active disease at baseline, no concomitant gastroesophageal reflux disease, no strictures at baseline, and at least one follow-up visit were analyzed. We compared patients with histologically localized proximal versus distal versus extended (=proximal and distal) disease with regard to patient, disease characteristics, disease presentation, and development of complications. Results: We included 124 patients with a median of 2.5 years of follow-up (73.4% males, median age 35.0 years). Ten patients had proximal (8.1%), 46 patients had distal (37.1%), and 68 patients had extended disease (54.8%). Patients with proximal disease were significantly more often females (80%) compared with patients with distal (26.1%, p = 0.002) or extended disease (19.1%, p < 0.001) and reported less severe symptoms (VAS 0 vs. VAS 1, p = 0.001). Endoscopic and histological disease was less pronounced in the proximal esophagus of proximal EoE compared to extended disease (EREFS 1.0 vs. 3.0, p = 0.001; 27.0 eos/hpf vs. 52.5 eos/hpf, p = 0.008). Patients with proximal disease were less likely to undergo dilation compared to patients with distal disease in the follow-up (3.3% vs. 23.3%, p = 0.010). In a multivariate Cox regression model, proximal eosinophilia was less likely to be associated with treatment failure compared to distal eosinophilia. Conclusion: Although isolated proximal EoE is infrequent, it is associated with less severe disease and better disease outcome. Proximal disease appears to present a unique EoE phenotype. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past years, eosinophils have become a focus of scientific interest, especially in the context of their recently uncovered functions (e.g. antiviral, anti‐inflammatory, regulatory). These versatile cells display both beneficial and detrimental activities under various physiological and pathological conditions. Eosinophils are involved in the pathogenesis of many diseases which can be classified into primary (clonal) and secondary (reactive) disorders and idiopathic (hyper)eosinophilic syndromes. Depending on the biological specimen, the eosinophil count in different body compartments may serve as a biomarker reflecting the underlying pathophysiology and/or activity of distinct diseases and as a therapy‐driving (predictive) and monitoring tool. Personalized selection of an appropriate therapeutic strategy directly or indirectly targeting the increased number and/or activity of eosinophils should be based on the understanding of eosinophil homeostasis including their interactions with other immune and non‐immune cells within different body compartments. Hence, restoring as well as maintaining homeostasis within an individual's eosinophil pool is a goal of both specific and non‐specific eosinophil‐targeting therapies. Despite the overall favourable safety profile of the currently available anti‐eosinophil biologics, the effect of eosinophil depletion should be monitored from the perspective of possible unwanted consequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Eosinophils are bone marrow‐derived granulocytes and are found in low numbers in the peripheral blood of healthy subjects. In type 2 inflammatory diseases, eosinopoiesis in the bone marrow is increased, resulting in a rise in the number of mature eosinophils released in the circulation. From the blood, eosinophils can migrate in multiple tissues and organs under both physiological and pathological conditions. Eosinophils exert their various functions through the synthesis and release of a variety of granule proteins and pro‐inflammatory mediators. Despite being present in all species of vertebrates, the functional role of eosinophils is still a matter of debate. Eosinophils may play a role in host defense against various pathogens. In addition, eosinophils have been reported to be involved in tissue homeostasis and exhibit immunomodulatory activities. In this review, we aim to provide a broad overview of eosinophil biology and eosinophilic diseases in a lexicon‐style format using keywords starting from A until Z with cross‐references to other chapters indicated in italics in the text or specified in parentheses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Occupational skin diseases have led the occupational disease statistics in Europe for many years. Especially occupational allergic contact dermatitis is associated with a poor prognosis and low healing rates leading to an enormous burden for the affected individual and for society. Objectives: To present the sensitization frequencies to the most relevant allergens of the European baseline series in patients with occupational contact dermatitis (OCD) and to compare sensitization profiles of different occupations. Methods: The data of 16 022 patients considered having OCD after patch testing within the European Surveillance System on Contact Allergies (ESSCA) network between January 2011 and December 2020 were evaluated. Patients (n = 46 652) in whom an occupational causation was refuted served as comparison group. Results: The highest percentages of OCD were found among patients working in agriculture, fishery and related workers, metal industry, chemical industry, followed by building and construction industry, health care, food and service industry. Sensitizations to rubber chemicals (thiurams, carbamates, benzothiazoles) and epoxy resins were associated with at least a doubled risk of OCD. After a decline from 2014 onwards, the risks to acquire an occupation‐related sensitization to methyl(chloro)isothiazolinone (MCI/MI) and especially to methylisothiazolinone (MI) seem to increase again. Sensitization rates to formaldehyde were stable, and to methyldibromo glutaronitrile (MDBGN) slightly decreasing over time. Conclusions: Among allergens in the European Baseline Series, occupational relevance is most frequently attributed to rubber accelerators, epoxy resins and preservatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a new method called the Skin Redness Index (SRI) for quantifying skin redness in dermatology. The SRI is a practical and automated approach that uses image analysis to calculate a redness score based on the color of the skin. The study found that the SRI had excellent inter-rater reliability and a strong correlation with the Clinician Erythema Assessment (CEA) scale. The authors suggest that the SRI could be a useful tool for accurately assessing skin lesions, evaluating disease activity, and planning appropriate therapies. Further research is needed to validate the SRI, particularly in non-Caucasian patients. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Massage therapists are particularly exposed to constituents of massage preparations, wet work and mechanical strain and therefore, at high risk to develop occupational dermatitis (OD). Objectives: To describe the sensitization spectrum of massage therapists with OD. Patients and Methods: In a retrospective study, patch test data of patients with OD (128 massage therapists and 24 374 patients working in other professions) collected by the Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK, 2008–2020) were analysed. Results: Hand dermatitis (91.4%) and allergic contact dermatitis (34.4%) were common in massage therapists with OD. Most frequent were sensitizations to fragrances/essential oils which were found in 54 (42.2%) massage therapists and thus, more often than in other patients with OD. Concomitant positivity to several fragrances/essential oils was frequent. In 8 (14.8%) of the 54 massage therapists, sensitizations to fragrances/essential oils were not detected with the baseline series, but only with special fragrance series. Conclusions: Allergic contact dermatitis is common in massage therapists with OD and is mainly caused by fragrances and essential oils. Hence, massage therapists should be aware of this risk. When OD is suspected, not only the baseline series, but also special fragrance series should be patch tested in this occupational group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Eosinophilia and eosinophil activation are recurrent features in various reactive states and certain hematologic malignancies. In patients with hypereosinophilia (HE), HE‐induced organ damage is often encountered and may lead to the diagnosis of a hypereosinophilic syndrome (HES). A number of known mechanisms and etiologies contribute to the development of HE and HES. Based on these etiologies and the origin of eosinophils, HE and HES are divided into primary forms where eosinophils are clonal cells, reactive forms where an underlying reactive or neoplastic condition is detected and eosinophils are considered to be "non‐clonal" cells, and idiopathic HE and HES in which neither a clonal nor a reactive underlying pathology is detected. Since 2012, this classification and the related criteria have been widely accepted and regarded as standard. However, during the past few years, new developments in the field and an increasing number of markers and targets have created a need to update these criteria and the classification of HE and HES. To address this challenge, a Working Conference on eosinophil disorders was organized in 2021. In this conference, a panel of experts representing the relevant fields, including allergy, dermatology, hematology, immunology, laboratory medicine, and pathology, met and discussed new markers and concepts as well as refinements in definitions, criteria and classifications of HE and HES. The outcomes of this conference are presented in this article and should assist in the diagnosis and management of patients with HE and HES in daily practice and in the preparation and conduct of clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Leviathan: Zeitschrift für Sozialwissenschaft (Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG) is the property of Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Continual analyses of patch test results with the European baseline series (EBS) serve both contact allergy surveillance and auditing the value of included allergens. Objectives: To present results of current EBS patch testing, obtained in 53 departments in 13 European countries during 2019 and 2020. Methods: Anonymised or pseudonymised individual data and partly aggregated data on demographic/clinical characteristics and patch test rest results with the EBS were prospectively collected and centrally pooled and analysed. Results: In 2019 and 2020, 22 581 patients were patch tested with the EBS. Sensitization to nickel remained most common (19.8 [19.2–20.4]% positivity [95% confidence interval]). Fragrance mix I and Myroxylon pereirae yielded very similar results with 6.80 (6.43–7.19)% and 6.62 (6.25–7.00)% positivity, respectively. Formaldehyde at 2% aq. yielded almost one percentage point more positive reactions than 1% concentration (2.49 [2.16–2.85]% vs. 1.59 [1.33–1.88]); methylchloroisothiazolinone/methylisothiazolinone (MCI/MI) and MI alone up to around 5% positives. Among the new additions, propolis was most commonly positive (3.48 [3.16–3.82]%), followed by 2‐hydroxyethyl methacrylate (2.32 [2.0–2.68]%). Conclusion: Ongoing surveillance on the prevalence of contact sensitization contributes to an up‐to‐date baseline series containing the most frequent and/or relevant contact sensitizers for routine patch testing in Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the development of targeted therapies for allergic diseases, the need for biomarkers supporting disease diagnosis and management has increased. Recent research has elucidated the pattern of cytokines and their distinct roles in the pathogenesis of allergic diseases. This means that cytokines should be considered as biomarkers. In this review article, we summarize published findings and critically discuss the use of cytokine measurements in association with disease diagnosis and management. Among the variety of suggested cytokines, thymus and activation-regulated chemokine (TARC) stands out and can indeed serve as a biomarker of atopic dermatitis. Both biologic characteristics and technical issues determine the reliability and limit the use of blood cytokines as biomarkers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Physicians are increasingly confronted with patients presenting with symptoms of esophageal dysfunction resembling eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), but absence of significant esophageal eosinophilia. The purpose of this study was to characterize and classify this group of EoE variants. Design: Patients from six EoE‐centers with symptoms of esophageal dysfunction, but peak eosinophil counts of <60/mm2 (<15/hpf) in esophageal biopsies and absence of gastro‐esophageal reflux disease (GERD) were included. Clinical, endoscopic, (immuno)‐histological, and molecular features were determined and compared with EoE, GERD, and healthy controls. Results: We included 69 patients with EoE variants. Endoscopic abnormalities were found in 53.6%. We identified three histological subtypes: EoE‐like esophagitis (36/69, 52.2%), lymphocytic esophagitis (14/69, 20.3%), and non‐specific esophagitis (19/69, 27.5%). Immunohistochemistry revealed—in contrast to EoE—no significant increase in inflammatory cell infiltrates compared with GERD and healthy controls, except for lymphocytes in lymphocytic esophagitis. EoE‐typical Th2‐response was absent in all EoE variants. However, considerable structural changes were detected based on histology and protein expression. Using next generation mRNA sequencing, we found the three EoE variants to have distinct molecular fingerprints partially sharing pronounced traits of EoE. Hierarchical sample clustering of RNA sequencing data confirmed the presence of an EoE‐like (characterized by eotaxin‐3 expression), non‐specific, and lymphocytic variant cluster (characterized by CD3 cells and TSLP expression). Conclusion: All EoE variants are clinically and histologically active conditions despite the absence of esophageal eosinophilia. EoE variants appear to be part of a disease spectrum, where classical EoE represents the most common and apparent phenotype. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article, titled "Decoding atopic dermatitis: unveiling phenotypes through data-driven methods," discusses the use of data-driven methods, such as machine learning, to identify subtypes of atopic dermatitis (AD). The study analyzed a cohort of 1973 adult patients with AD and identified five distinct phenotypes based on disease severity. The study also found that factors such as itch intensity and flare patterns influenced phenotypic classification. While data-driven approaches have the potential to identify complex patterns, it is important to consider data quality and the integration of domain expertise to ensure accurate conclusions. Future research should focus on understanding the evolution of AD phenotypes over time and their correlation with treatment outcomes. [Extracted from the article]

Eosinophil-associated diseases (EADs) are a range of heterogeneous conditions in which eosinophils are believed to play a critical pathological role. EADs include common illnesses such as eosinophilic asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis and rare conditions such as hypereosinophilic syndromes (HES) and eosinophilic gastrointestinal disorders (EGIDs). EADs are associated with substantial burdens for the patient, including chronic, debilitating symptoms, increased financial burden, decreased health-related quality of life, and the need for repeated visits to multiple different healthcare professionals (HCPs), emergency departments, and/or hospitals. Poor EAD recognition by HCPs often contributes to delayed diagnoses, which further delays patient access to appropriate care and effective treatments, contributing to poor health outcomes. The objective of this charter is to outline key patient rights and expectations with respect to the management of their condition(s) and to set forth an ambitious action plan to improve health outcomes for patients with EADs: (1) people with EADs, their caretakers, HCPs, and the public must have greater awareness and education about EADs; (2) people with EADs must receive a timely, accurate diagnosis; (3) all people with EADs must have access to an appropriate multidisciplinary team, when necessary; and (4) people with EADs must have access to safe and effective treatment options without unnecessary regulatory delays. The principles described in this charter demonstrate the core elements of quality care that people with EADs must receive, and they represent clear steps by which to reduce patient and caregiver burden and improve patient outcomes. We urge HCPs, healthcare systems, and policymakers worldwide to swiftly adopt these principles to ensure patients with EADs have an accurate diagnosis in a timely manner and access to high-level care and treatment in an appropriate setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Benzyl alcohol is a widely used preservative, solvent and fragrance material. According to published data, it is a rare sensitizer in humans. Objectives: To identify characteristics and sensitization patterns of patients with positive patch test reactions to benzyl alcohol and to check the reliability of the patch test preparation benzyl alcohol 1% pet. Patients and Methods: Retrospective analysis of data from the Information Network of Departments of Dermatology (IVDK), 2010–2019. Results: Of 70 867 patients patch tested with benzyl alcohol 1% pet., 146 (0.21%) showed a positive reaction, most of them (89%) only weakly positive. The number of doubtful and irritant reactions significantly exceeded the number of positive reactions. Reproducibility of positive test reactions was low. Among benzyl alcohol‐positive patients, compared to benzyl alcohol‐negative patients, there were significantly more patients with leg dermatitis (17.8% vs. 8.6%), more patients aged 40 years or more (81.5% vs. 70.5%) and more patients who were tested because of a suspected intolerance reaction to topical medications (34.9% vs. 16.6%). Concomitant positive reactions were mainly seen to fragrances, preservatives and ointment bases. Conclusions: Sensitization to benzyl alcohol occurs very rarely, mainly in patients with stasis dermatitis. In view of our results, benzyl alcohol cannot be regarded as a significant contact allergen, and therefore marking it as skin sensitizer 1B and labelling it with H 317 is not helpful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Keywords: 2,4,6-Tris(dimethylaminomethyl)phenol; CAS 90-72-2; epoxy resin; patch testing; tris-DMP EN 2,4,6-Tris(dimethylaminomethyl)phenol CAS 90-72-2 epoxy resin patch testing tris-DMP 316 318 3 03/15/23 20230401 NES 230401 2,4,6-Tris(dimethylaminomethyl)phenol (tris-DMP; CAS No. 90-72-2) is a hardener/accelerator frequently used in epoxy resin systems (ERS), especially at low ambient temperature.[1] First cases of contact sensitization to tris-DMP have been observed at the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health (FIOH) around 1990.[2] Since then, contact sensitization to tris-DMP has been described in several case reports from various European countries.[1] In the FIOH, 14 cases of contact sensitization to tris-DMP have been registered from 1991 to 2013, rendering it the second most frequent sensitizer among epoxy resin hardeners.[1] Since 2016, tris-DMP is available as patch test preparation at 0.5% in pet. from Chemotechnique, Vellinge, Sweden. However, 9 out of 14 FIOH patients (64%) sensitized to tris-DMP, but only 3 of the 28 tris-DMP positive IVDK patients (11%), were painters. DISCUSSION Consistent with the FIOH data,[1] we found sensitizations to tris-DMP less frequently than sensitizations to MXDA, but with a similar frequency as sensitizations to IPDA. [Extracted from the article]