Search

Hidradenitis suppurativa is a chronic immune mediated disease of universal distribution that causes great damage to the quality of life of the affected individual, whose prevalence is estimated at 0.41% in the Brazilian population. The objective of this work was update on physiopathogenesis, diagnosis and classification of hidradenitis suppurativa and to establish therapeutic recommendations in the Brazilian reality. It was organized as a work group composed of eight dermatologists from several institutions of the country with experience in the treatment of hidradenitis suppurativa and carried out review on the topic. Recommendations were elaborated and voted by modified Delphi system and statistical analysis of the results was performed. The Brazilian consensus on the clinical approach of hidradenitis suppurativa had the support of the Brazilian Society of Dermatology.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis is a highly prevalent inflammatory and pruritic dermatosis with a multifactorial etiology, which includes skin barrier defects, immune dysfunction, and microbiome alterations. Atopic dermatitis is mediated by genetic, environmental, and psychological factors and requires therapeutic management that covers all the aspects of its complex pathogenesis. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this article is to present the experience, opinions, and recommendations of Brazilian dermatology experts regarding the therapeutic management of atopic dermatitis. METHODS: Eighteen experts from 10 university hospitals with experience in atopic dermatitis were appointed by the Brazilian Society of Dermatology to organize a consensus on the therapeutic management of atopic dermatitis. The 18 experts answered an online questionnaire with 14 questions related to the treatment of atopic dermatitis. Afterwards, they analyzed the recent international guidelines on atopic dermatitis of the American Academy of Dermatology, published in 2014, and of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, published in 2018. Consensus was defined as approval by at least 70% of the panel. RESULTS/CONCLUSION: The experts stated that the therapeutic management of atopic dermatitis is based on skin hydration, topical anti-inflammatory agents, avoidance of triggering factors, and educational programs. Systemic therapy, based on immunosuppressive agents, is only indicated for severe refractory disease and after failure of topical therapy. Early detection and treatment of secondary bacterial and viral infections is mandatory, and hospitalization may be needed to control atopic dermatitis flares. Novel target-oriented drugs such as immunobiologicals are invaluable therapeutic agents for atopic dermatitis.

Background: Dermatological diseases are among the primary causes of the demand for basic health care. Studies on the frequency of dermatoses are important for the proper management of health planning. Objectives: To evaluate the nosological and behavioral profiles of dermatological consultations in Brazil. Methods: The Brazilian Society of Dermatology invited all of its members to complete an online form on patients who sought consultations from March 21-26, 2018. The form contained questions about patient demographics, consultation type according to the patient's funding, the municipality of the consultation, diagnosis, treatments and procedures. Diagnostic and therapeutic decisions were compared between subgroups. Results: Data from 9629 visits were recorded. The most frequent causes for consultation were acne (8.0%), photoaging (7.7%), nonmelanoma skin cancer (5.4%), and actinic keratosis (4.7%). The identified diseases had distinct patterns with regard to gender, skin color, geographic region, type of funding for the consultation, and age group. Concerning the medical conducts, photoprotection was indicated in 44% of consultations, surgical diagnostic procedures were performed in 7.3%, surgical therapeutic procedures were conducted in 19.2%, and cosmetic procedures were performed in 7.1%. Study limitations: Nonrandomized survey, with a sample period of one week. Conclusion: This research allowed us to identify the epidemiological profiles of the demands of outpatients for dermatologists in various contexts. The results also highlight the importance of aesthetic demands in privately funded consultations and the significance of diseases such as acne, nonmelanoma skin cancer, leprosy, and psoriasis to public health.

Made available in DSpace on 2019-10-04T12:38:20Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2019-03-01. Added 1 bitstream(s) on 2019-10-09T18:34:12Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 S0365-05962019000700056.pdf: 486399 bytes, checksum: a2e0a3f4581e4f634c104b420135972a (MD5) Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) BACKGROUND: Urticarias are frequent diseases, with 15% to 20% of the population presenting at least one acute episode in their lifetime. Urticaria are classified in acute ( 6 weeks). They may be induced or spontaneous. OBJECTIVES: To verify the diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations in chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU), according to the experience of Brazilian experts, regarding the available guidelines (international and US). Methods: A questionnaire was sent to Brazilian experts, with questions concerning diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations for CSU in adults. RESULTS: Sixteen Brazilian experts answered the questionnaire related to diagnosis and therapy of CSU in adults and data were analyzed. Final text was written, considering the available guidelines (International and US), adapted to the medical practices in Brazil. Diagnostic work up in CSU is rarely necessary. Biopsy of skin lesion and histopathology may be indicated to rule out other diseases, such as, urticarial vasculitis. Other laboratory tests, such as complete blood count, CRP, ESR and thyroid screening. Treatment of CSU includes second-generation anti-histamines (sgAH) at licensed doses, sgAH two, three to fourfold doses (non-licensed) and omalizumab. Other drugs, such as, cyclosporine, immunomodulatory drugs and immunosuppressants may be indicated (non-licensed and with limited scientific evidence). CONCLUSIONS: Most of the Brazilian experts in this study partially agreed with the diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations of the International and US guidelines. They agreed with the use of sgAH at licensed doses. Increase in the dose to fourfold of sgAH may be suggested with restrictions, due to its non-licensed dose. Sedating anti-histamines, as suggested by the US guideline, are indicated by some of the Brazilian experts, due to its availability. Adaptations are mandatory in the treatment of CSU, due to scarce or lack of other therapeutic resources in the public health system in Brazil, such as omalizumab or cyclosporine. Univ Sao Paulo, Dermatol, Fac Med, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Fac Med ABC, Postgrad Program, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Univ Sao Paulo, Dept Dermatol, Fac Med, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Univ Fed Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brazil Univ Nove Julho, Dermatol, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Univ Fed Minas Gerais, Dermatol Serv, Hosp Clin, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil Univ Fed Minas Gerais, Dermatol, Fac Med, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil Univ Fed Pernambuco, Dept Dermatol, Ctr Ciencias Med, Fac Med, Recife, PE, Brazil Fac Evangel Curitiba, Dermatol Serv, Curitiba, Parana, Brazil Univ Sao Paulo, Div Dermatol, Hosp Clin, Fac Meclicina, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Univ Estadual Paulista, Dept Dermatol & Radiotherapy, Botucatu, SP, Brazil Hosp Padre Bento Guarulhos, Training & Improvement Management, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Hosp Serv Publ Estadual Sao Paulo, Dermatol Serv, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Univ Fed Sao Paulo, Urticaria Outpatient Clin, Dept Dermatol, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Univ Fed Rio Grande do Sul, Dermatol Serv, Hosp Clin Porto Alegre, Fac Med, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil Ambulatorio Dermatol Sanitaria, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil Santa Casa Porto Alegre, Dermatol Serv, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil Santa Casa Misericordia Sao Paulo, Dermatol Clin, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Santa Casa Misericardia Sao Paulo, Dermatol, Fac Ciencias Med, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Fac Med ABC, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil Univ Estadual Paulista, Dept Dermatol & Radiotherapy, Botucatu, SP, Brazil CAPES: 001

Background Leprosy control is based on early diagnosis and multidrug therapy. For treatment purposes, leprosy patients can be classified as paucibacillary (PB) or multibacillary (MB), according to the number of skin lesions. Studies regarding a uniform treatment regimen (U-MDT) for all leprosy patients have been encouraged by the WHO, rendering disease classification unnecessary. Methodology and findings An independent, randomized, controlled clinical trial conducted from 2007 to 2015 in Brazil, compared main outcomes (frequency of reactions, bacilloscopic index trend, disability progression and relapse rates) among MB patients treated with a uniform regimen/U-MDT (dapsone+rifampicin+clofazimine for six months) versus WHO regular-MDT/R-MDT (dapsone+rifampicin+clofazimine for 12 months). A total of 613 newly diagnosed, untreated MB patients with high bacterial load were included. There was no statistically significant difference in Kaplan-Meyer survival function regarding reaction or disability progression among patients in the U-MDT and R-MDT groups, with more than 25% disability progression in both groups. The full mixed effects model adjusted for the bacilloscopic index average trend in time showed no statistically significant difference for the regression coefficient in both groups and for interaction variables that included treatment group. During active follow up, four patients in U-MDT group relapsed representing a relapse rate of 2.6 per 1000 patients per year of active follow up (95% CI [0·81, 6·2] per 1000). During passive follow up three patients relapsed in U-MDT and one in R-MTD. As this period corresponds to passive follow up, sensitivity analysis estimated the relapse rate for the entire follow up period between 2·9- and 4·5 per 1000 people per year. Conclusion Our results on the first randomized and controlled study on U-MDT together with the results from three previous studies performed in China, India and Bangladesh, support the hypothesis that UMDT is an acceptable option to be adopted in endemic countries to treat leprosy patients in the field worldwide. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00669643, Author summary Since the introduction of multidrug therapy for leprosy in the 80’s, different classification criteria for leprosy patients have been proposed and treatment has been progressively shortened. Currently, leprosy patients are classified into paucibacillary/PB and multibacillary/MB based on the number of skins lesions. MB patients (over 5 skin lesions) receive three drugs (rifampicin, dapsone, clofazimine) for 12 months, while PB patients (up to 5 skin lesions) receive two drugs (rifampicin, dapsone) for 6 months. We conducted a randomized clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy of a uniform treatment (U-MDT) for both PB and MB leprosy patients, regardless any classification criteria. The current study includes results from: laboratory tests (bacilloscopic index/BI, serology and histopathology), clinical evaluation during a long follow-up, and uses adequate epidemiological analysis that gives robust evidence on main parameters used to evaluate the efficacy of U-MDT. This study reports data among MB leprosy patients treated with regular/R-MDT and uniform/U-MDT regarding: (i) The frequency of leprosy reactions; (ii) BI decrease, (iii) Disability progression and (iv) Relapse. Overall, our results showed that there was no statistically significant difference in these outcomes for both treatment groups. In this sense, U-MDT can be considered as part of leprosy policy by control programs in endemic countries.