Search

Background: There are few studies on bullying in skin diseases. Persons with skin diseases are especially prone to bullying. Objectives: This component of the project 'Bullying among Dermatologic Patients' aimed to study the prevalence and nature of bullying in patients with skin diseases from different countries and age groups. Methods: Data were collected from participants of international social media groups for patients with skin diseases, in‐patients and out‐patients with skin diseases, and parents of children with skin diseases from six European countries. School and university students from Poland and Ukraine were asked to answer the question: Have you been bullied because of skin problems? Results: Bullying was reported in 1016 patients with 36 different skin diseases. Prevalence of self‐reported and parental‐reported bullying was quite heterogeneous among different countries In total, self‐reported bullying was noted by 25.6% of patients with skin diseases during face‐to‐face consultations, by 63.7% of respondents from international patients' groups and by 12.2% of school and university students. Parental‐reported bullying was detected in 34.5% of 3–4 years old children with skin diseases. The peak of bullying prevalence occurred between the ages of 13 and 15. The most prevalent forms of bullying were verbal abuse and social isolation. Physical abuse was the least often reported form of bullying. Only 33.2% of participants talked to anyone about being bullied. Negative long‐term effects of bullying were reported by 63% of respondents. Conclusions: Skin disease‐related bullying was reported by patients in all centres of the project. The main manifestations of bullying were similar in different countries and among patients with different skin diseases. International activities aimed to decrease or prevent skin disease‐related bullying in different age groups are needed. These activities should be multidirectional and target teachers, parents of classmates and classmates of children with skin diseases, patients' parents and patients themselves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose To evaluate the possible role of stress before the onset/extension of lichen planus. Patients and method Forty-six outpatients with lichen planus were enrolled. The design was a case-control study (controls had skin diseases with low psychosomatic component). Stressful situations were evaluated using Holmes and Rahe's social readjustment rating scale. Results Lichen planus had an incidence of 0.36% among dermatological conditions. In the lichen planus group, there was a female predominance (76%) and a median age around 50 years. More than 67% of cases experienced at least one stressful event, compared with 21% of controls (χ2 = 17.58, P < 0.001). The odds ratio was 7.44. There was a borderline significant difference in the mean number of stressful events between lichen planus patients and controls ( P = 0.06). We divided the situations described by Holmes and Rahe into three categories: family, personal, and job or financial problems. The presence of major life events was significant different in patients and controls ( P = 0.005). Family matters were described by 43.6% of lichen planus patients, statistically significant compared with controls ( P = 0.002). In almost 25% of cases of lichen planus, ‘the stressful event’ was represented by the illness or death of someone dear. ‘Personal problems’ seemed to be important compared with controls ( P = 0.04), exams representing 25% of these matters. There was no difference between the patients and controls regarding the importance of job or financial changes. Conclusion Stressful situations, especially related to family, may have a role in the onset and extension of lichen planus lesions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Linked Article: Hon et al. Br J Dermatol 2019; 181:290–295. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor about alopecia areata is presented.

Many events, including the COVID‐19 pandemic, have accelerated the implementation of teledermatology pathways within dermatology departments and across healthcare organizations. Quality of Life (QoL) assessment in dermatology is also a rapidly developing field with a gradual shift from theory to practice. The purpose of this paper organized jointly by the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) Task Force (TF) on QoL and patient‐oriented outcomes and the EADV TF on teledermatology is to present current knowledge about QoL assessment during the use of teledermatology approaches, including data on health‐related (HR) QoL instruments used in teledermatology, comparison of influence of different treatment methods on HRQoL after face‐to‐face and teledermatology consultations and to make practical recommendations concerning the assessment of QoL in teledermatology. The EADV TFs made the following position statements: HRQoL assessment may be an important part in most of teledermatology activities; HRQoL assessment may be easily and effectively performed during teledermatology consultations. It is especially important to monitor HRQoL of patients with chronic skin diseases during lockdowns or in areas where it is difficult to reach a hospital for face‐to‐face consultation; regular assessment of HRQoL of patients with skin diseases during teledermatology consultations may help to monitor therapy efficacy and visualize individual patient's needs; we recommend the use of the DLQI in teledermatology, including the use of the DLQI app which is available in seven languages; it is important to develop apps for dermatology‐specific HRQoL instruments for use in children (for example the CDLQI and InToDermQoL) and for disease‐specific instruments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: According to results of a recent literature search performed by the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) Task Forces (TF) on Quality of Life and Patient Oriented Outcomes (QoL and PO) and Acne, Rosacea and Hidradenitis Suppurativa (ARHS), most of the publications where health‐related (HR) QoL of acne patients was studied were clinical trials. Members of the EADV TF on QoL and PO decided to detect which acne treatment has the best influence on HRQoL of acne patients. A new literature search was organized to find publications on acne treatment where the HRQoL of patients was assessed as an outcome measure. From 186 papers with HRQoL assessment, 37 papers were included for further analysis. Our results revealed that oral isotretinoin had the best influence on HRQoL of acne patients. Several other treatment methods also showed good effects on the HRQoL of acne patients. Oral isotretinoin and norethindrone acetate/ethinyl estradiol, topical clindamycin phosphate/benzoyl peroxide and adapalene/benzoyl peroxide showed significantly better effect on HRQoL than placebo. There is limited number of the high‐quality studies on acne treatment where HRQoL was assessed. Dermatology‐specific and acne‐specific instruments showed much better sensitivity to successful therapeutic intervention than generic HRQoL instruments. The most frequently used HRQoL instrument was the Dermatology Life Quality Index questionnaire. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "A case of solid facial oedema successfully treated with isotretinoin".

A letter to the editor is presented which discusses a case study that focuses on the impact of stressful events in the occurrence of vitiligo in children.

The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) Task Forces (TFs) on Quality of Life (QoL) and Patient‐Oriented Outcomes and Acne, Rosacea and Hidradenitis Suppurativa (ARHS) do not recommend the use of any generic instrument as a single method of Health Related (HR) QoL assessment in rosacea, except when comparing quimp (quality of life impairment) in rosacea patients with that in other non‐dermatologic skin diseases and/or healthy controls. The EADV TFs on QoL and Patient‐Oriented Outcomes and ARHS recommend the use of the dermatology‐specific HRQoL instrument the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and the rosacea‐specific HRQoL instrument RosaQoL in rosacea patients. The DLQI minimal clinically important difference may be used as a marker of clinical efficacy of the treatment and DLQI score banding of 0 or 1 corresponding to no effect on patients' HRQoL could be an important treatment goal. This information may be added to consensuses and guidelines for rosacea. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a need for researchers to have easy reference to the wide spectrum of different types of quality of life (QoL) instruments that can be used in atopic dermatitis ( AD). Previous reviews on QoL in AD do not cover the full spectrum of QoL measures used in studies on AD. This study, on behalf of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology ( EADV) Task Force on QoL, contains information on instruments available for health-related QoL and family QoL assessment in AD including information on validation, experience of QoL assessment in AD for different purposes, peculiarities of QoL assessment in different age groups, expert analysis of available instruments including data on limitations of their use and recommendations of the Task Force. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Core outcome sets (COSs) are an agreed standardized collection of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials for a specific clinical condition. Tsekhe aim of our position paper by the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) Task Force on Quality of Life and Patient Oriented Outcomes was to identify the challenges and Patient Oriented Outcomes advantages in the development of COSs within dermatological QoL research. Twelve EADV Task Force multidisciplinary team members presented a total of 101 items (51 advantages and 50 disadvantages). All participants considered that COS are beneficial for comparison between different studies, treatments, dermatological diseases, geographical location and ethnicities. In conclusion, the EADV Task Force on Quality of Life and Patient Oriented Outcomes has recognized the primacy of advantages of COS and deliberated that the disadvantages in COS are related to development process and use of COS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

New treatment options may lead to an increased interest in using reliable and sensitive instruments to assess health‐related quality of life in people with alopecia areata (AA). The purpose of this paper is to present current knowledge about quality of life assessment in AA. The dermatology‐specific Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) was the most widely reported health‐related quality of life instrument used in AA. Three AA‐specific (Alopecia Areata Symptom Impact Scale, Alopecia Areata Quality of Life Index and Alopecia Areata Patients' Quality of Life) and three hair disease‐specific instruments (Hairdex, Scalpdex and 'hair‐specific Skindex‐29') were identified with a range of content and validation characteristics: there is little evidence yet of the actual use of these measures in AA. Scalpdex is the best‐validated hair disease‐specific instrument. Further extensive validation is needed for all of the AA‐specific instruments. The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Task Force on Quality of Life and Patient Oriented Outcomes recommends the use of the dermatology‐specific DLQI questionnaire, hair disease‐specific Scalpdex and the alopecia areata‐specific instruments the Alopecia Areata Symptom Impact Scale or Alopecia Areata Quality of Life Index, despite the limited experience of their use. We hope that new treatment methods will be able to improve both clinical signs and health‐related quality of life in patients with AA. In order to assess the outcomes of trials on these new treatment methods, it would be helpful when further development and validation of AA‐specific instruments is being encouraged and also conducted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The pharmaceutical approach to skin disease has been hugely successful, but despite effective drugs being available and used, there are still vast numbers of people who continue to have some level of persisting skin disease and continue to experience quality of life (QoL) impairment. So the question that needs to be answered, while we await further advances in our drug‐based armamentarium, is how can we improve patients' QoL, beyond drugs? A working group was formed from members of the EADV Task Force on QoL and Patient Oriented Outcomes. Participants were asked to suggest all the ways in which they considered patients' QoL may be improved beyond medicines. Four groups of management approaches that may improve QoL in dermatology were identified: interventions within the dermatology service (hospitalization, multidisciplinary teams, patch testing and establishing relevant allergens and education), external services (corrective make‐up, climatotherapy and balneotherapy), psychological (psychological intervention, cognitive therapy, hypnosis), lifestyle (lifestyle behavioural changes, religion and spirituality and music). The ultimate aim of therapy is to eradicate a disease in an individual and return the person's life to normal. But until the day comes when this has been achieved for every skin disease and for every patient there will be a need to support and assist many patients in additional non‐pharmaceutical ways. These 'adjuvant' approaches receive too little attention while dermatologists and researchers strive for better pharmacological therapy. The different ways in which patients may benefit have been reviewed in our paper, but the reality is that most have a very poor evidence base. The research challenges that we have to meet are to identify those approaches that might be of value and to provide evidence for their optimal use. In the meantime, clinicians should consider the use of these approaches where QoL remains impaired despite optimal use of standard therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) has started the 'Healthy Skin @ Work' campaign aimed to raise awareness among the public and EU authorities on the frequency and impact of occupational skin diseases (OSDs). The EADV Task Forces (TFs) on Quality of Life and Patient Oriented Outcomes (QoL/PO) and on OSD present their mutual position statement on QoL assessment in OSDs. The EADV TFs recommend the use of the DLQI as a dermatology‐specific instrument and SF‐36 as a generic instrument in health‐related (HR) QoL studies on OSDs. The OSD‐specific questionnaire, LIOD, is not recommended for general use in its present form because of its three months recall period. The EADV TFs discourage the use of non‐validated and of non‐validated modifications of previously validated HRQoL instruments. The EADV TFs wish to encourage research into: the HRQoL impact of OSDs other than occupational contact dermatitis and hand eczema; comparisons between the effects of different treatments and other interventions on HRQoL in OSDs; and into the HRQoL impairment of patients with OSDs from different countries, and with different provoking factors, to predict if the results of successful therapeutic and educational interventions may be generalized across countries and between occupations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The pandemic of COVID‐19 is a global challenge for health care, and dermatologists are not standing apart from trying to meet this challenge. The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) has collected recommendations from its Task Forces (TFs) related to COVID‐19. The Journal of the EADV has established a COVID‐19 Special Forum giving free access to related articles. The psychosocial effects of the pandemic, an increase in contact dermatitis and several other skin diseases because of stress, disinfectants and protective equipment use, especially in healthcare workers, the temporary limited access to dermatologic care, the dilemma whether or not to pause immunosuppressive therapy, and, finally, the occurrence of skin lesions in patients infected by COVID‐19 all contribute to significant quality of life (QoL) impairment. Here, we present detailed recommendations of the EADV TF on QoL and patient‐oriented outcomes on how to improve QoL in dermatologic patients during the COVID‐19 pandemic for several different groups of patients and for the general population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is organized jointly by the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) Task Force (TF) on Quality of Life (QoL) and Patient‐Oriented Outcomes and the EADV TF on acne, rosacea and hidradenitis suppurativa (ARHS). The purpose of this paper was to present current knowledge about QoL assessment in HS, including data on HS‐specific health‐related (HR) QoL instruments and HRQoL changes in clinical trials, and to make practical recommendations concerning the assessment of QoL in people with HS. HS results in significant quimp that is higher than in most other chronic skin diseases. HS impact in published studies was assessed predominantly (84% of studies) by the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). There is a lack of high‐quality clinical trials in HS patients where HRQoL instruments have been used as outcome measures. One double‐blind randomized placebo‐controlled trial on infliximab with low number of participants reported significantly better HRQoL improvement in the treatment group than in the placebo group. Well‐designed clinical studies in HS patients to compare different treatment methods, including surgical methods and assessing long‐term effects, are needed. Because of lack of sufficient validation, the Task Forces are not at present able to recommend existing HS‐specific HRQoL instruments for use in clinical studies. The EADV TFs recommend the dermatology‐specific DLQI questionnaire for use in HS patients. The EADV TFs encourage the further development, validation and use of other HS‐specific, dermatology‐specific and generic instruments but such use should be based on the principles presented in the previous publications of the EADV TF on QoL and Patient‐Oriented Outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The first dermatology‐specific proxy health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) instrument for children 0–4 years old with skin diseases, the Infants and Toddlers Dermatology Quality of Life (InToDermQoL), was recently developed. In order to avoid the problem of cross‐cultural inequivalence focus groups work and pilot tests were organized simultaneously in all national centres of the project. The InToDermQoL showed good comprehensibility, clarity and acceptance. Objective: To validate the InToDermQoL questionnaire during international field tests. Methods: Internal consistency, test–retest reliability, convergent and discriminant validity of the InToDermQoL questionnaire were checked during international field tests. Results: Parents of 473 children with skin diseases filled in the national language versions of the InToDermQoL questionnaire. All three age‐specific versions of the InToDermQoL questionnaire with 10, 12 and 15 items, respectively, showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's α 0.90–0.93), good test–retest reliability (correlation coefficients > 0.9), significant correlations with the most widely used atopic dermatitis‐specific proxy instrument, the Infants Dermatitis Quality of Life Index (correlation coefficients 0.68–0.79). The InToDermQoL versions for children <3 years old well correlated with the atopic dermatis severity measure Scoring of Atopic Dermatitis (correlation coefficients 0.66 and 0.86 for 10 and 12 items versions, respectively). The InToDermQoL questionnaire discriminated well among different diagnoses and disease severity levels. Conclusion: Our field tests confirmed internal consistency, test–retest reliability, convergent and discriminant validity of the InToDermQoL questionnaire. Development and validation of the InToDermQoL questionnaire make it possible to assess dermatology‐specific aspects of HRQoL in youngest children with skin diseases. There are many reasons to assess HRQoL in dermatologic clinical practice, and we hope that our new instrument will be used internationally in paediatric dermatology for research and practical needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) Task Forces (TFs) on Quality of Life (QoL) and Patient Oriented Outcomes, Melanoma and Non‐Melanoma Skin Cancer (NMSC) present a review of the literature and position statement on health‐related (HR) QoL assessment in skin cancer patients. A literature search was carried out to identify publications since 1980 that included information about the impact of SC on QoL. Generic, dermatology‐specific, cancer‐specific, SC‐specific, facial SC‐specific, NMSC‐specific, basal cell carcinoma‐specific and melanoma‐specific QoL questionnaires have been used to assess HRQoL in SC patients. HRQoL was assessed in the context of creation and validation of the HRQoL instruments, clinical trials, comparison of QoL in SC and other cancers, other diseases or controls, HRQoL assessment after treatment, comorbidities, behaviour modification, predictors of QoL and survival, supportive care needs, coping strategies and fear of cancer recurrence. The most widely used instruments for HRQoL assessment in SC patients are the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ‐C30), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy‐Melanoma (FACT‐M), Skin Cancer Index (SCI), Short Form 36 Item Health Survey (SF‐36) and the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). The TFs recommend the use of the cancer‐specific EORTC QLQ‐C30, especially in late stages of disease, and the melanoma‐specific FACT‐M and SC‐specific SCI questionnaires. These instruments have been well validated and used in several studies. Other HRQoL instruments, also with good basic validation, are not currently recommended because the experience of their use is too limited. Dermatology‐specific HRQoL instruments can be used to assess the impact of skin‐related problems in SC. The TFs encourage further studies to validate HRQoL instruments for use in different stages of SC, in order to allow more detailed practical recommendations on HRQoL assessment in SC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Until now, there was no validated dermatology‐specific health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) instrument to be used in youngest patients. Objective: To create dermatology‐specific proxy instrument for HRQoL assessment in children from birth to 4 years. Methods: International focus groups, item selection and pilot tests were utilized. In order to avoid the problem of cross‐cultural inequivalence, focus group work and pilot tests were planned simultaneously in all national centres of the project. Comprehensibility, clarity, acceptance and internal consistency of new instrument were checked. Results: The title 'Infants and Toddlers Dermatology Quality of Life' was chosen for our new instrument with the proposed acronym 'InToDermQoL'. Focus group work was completed in seven national centres (Croatia, Germany, Greece, Malta, Poland, Romania and Ukraine). A total of 170 families of children with different skin diseases were interviewed, and a pilot version of the instrument was created. Centres from France, Denmark and Spain have joined the project at this stage. Parents of 125 children with skin diseases filled in the pilot versions of the instrument. Good comprehensibility, clarity, acceptance and internal consistency of the InToDermQoL were confirmed. The pilot test results showed that the InToDermQoL questionnaire well differentiates severity‐dependent differences. It was also checked and confirmed during the pilot test that no significant information was missed in the questionnaire. Three age‐specific versions of the InToDermQoL questionnaire with 10, 12 and 15 items, respectively, were approved for field tests. Conclusion: The pilot test results showed that the InToDermQoL questionnaire has good comprehensibility, clarity, acceptance and internal consistency and well differentiates severity‐dependent differences. Further validation of the InToDermQoL during international field test will be performed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Acne causes profound negative psychological and social effects on the quality of life (QoL) of patients. The European Dermatology Forum S3-Guideline for the Treatment of Acne recommended adopting a QoL measure as an integral part of acne management. Because of constantly growing interest in health-related QoL assessment in acne and because of the high impact of acne on patients’ lives, the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Task Force on QoL and Patient Oriented Outcomes and the Task Force on Acne, Rosacea and Hidradenitis Suppurativa have documented the QoL instruments that have been used in acne patients, with information on validation, purposes of their usage, description of common limitations and mistakes in their usage and overall recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The patient is the centre of a web of relationships, and the impact of his/her disease on family members and caregivers must be taken into account. The aim of this study was to identify the specific instruments that measure the impact of a dermatological disease on the quality of life (QoL) of family members, by performing a systematic search of the literature. Fifteen papers were identified, describing the creation and validation of nine instruments. Four of them concerned atopic dermatitis (Dermatitis Family Index, DFI; Parents' Index QoL Atopic Dermatitis, PiQoL- AD; QoL in primary caregivers of children with atopic dermatitis, QPCAD; Childhood Atopic Dermatitis Impact Scale, CADIS), two measured the impact of psoriasis in family members (Psoriasis Family Index, PFI; FamilyPso), one the impact of epidermolysis bullosa (Epidermolysis Bullosa Burden of Disease, EB-BoD), one of ichthyosis (Family Burden Ichthyosis, FBI), and one was generic for dermatological conditions (Family Dermatology Life Quality Index, FDLQI). The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology quality of life taskforce recommends that the impact of a skin disease on family and caregivers should be measured as part of any thorough evaluation of the burden of a disease. Guidelines are given to choose the most appropriate instruments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to describe the many ways in which quality of life (QoL) measurement may potentially be advantageous in routine clinical dermatology practice. Thirteen members of the EADV Task Force on Quality of Life, eight dermatologists, three health psychologists, one epidemiologist and one pharmacoepidemiologist, independently listed all of the ways they thought this may be advantageous. A total of 108 different ways of using QoL information in clinical practice were suggested (median per participant = 8, range = 4-15), and were classified into 20 descriptive groups. These were sorted into the following five categories: inform clinical decisions, clinician-patient communication, awareness of skin disease burden, informing the consultation and clinical service administration. The wide range of potential benefits identified may not only encourage clinicians to use these measures but also highlights many areas requiring evidence to establish the true value of routine use of QoL measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]