EuroGuiDerm Guideline on the systemic treatment of Psoriasis vulgaris - Part 2: specific clinical and comorbid situations.

This evidence- and consensus-based guideline on the treatment of psoriasis vulgaris was developed following the EuroGuiDerm Guideline and Consensus Statement Development Manual. The second part of the guideline provides guidance for specific clinical and comorbid situations such as treating psoriasis vulgaris patient with concomitant psoriatic arthritis, concomitant inflammatory bowel disease, a history of malignancies or a history of depression or suicidal ideation. It further holds recommendations for concomitant diabetes, viral hepatitis, disease affecting the heart or the kidneys as well as concomitant neurological disease. Advice on how to screen for tuberculosis and recommendations on how to manage patients with a positive tuberculosis test result are given. It further covers treatment for pregnant women or patients with a wish for a child in the near future. Information on vaccination, immunogenicity and systemic treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic is also provided.

EuroGuiDerm Guideline on the systemic treatment of Psoriasis vulgaris - Part 1: treatment and monitoring recommendations.

This evidence- and consensus-based guideline on the treatment of psoriasis vulgaris was developed following the EuroGuiDerm Guideline and Consensus Statement Development Manual. The first part of the guideline includes general information on the scope and purpose, health questions covered, target users and strength/limitations of the guideline. Suggestions for disease severity grading and treatment goals are provided. It presents the general treatment recommendations as well as detailed management and monitoring recommendations for the individual drugs. The treatment options discussed in this guideline are as follows: acitretin, ciclosporin, fumarates, methotrexate, adalimumab, apremilast, brodalumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, guselkumab, infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, secukinumab, tildrakizumab and ustekinumab.

The current extent of and need for shared decision making in atopic dermatitis and psoriasis in the Netherlands: an online survey study amongst patients and physicians.

BACKGROUND: In shared decision making (SDM), patients and physicians work together to choose the best treatment option for an individual patient. Atopic dermatitis (AD) and psoriasis are particularly suitable for SDM, considering that the best treatment option depends on a patient's preferences and values (preference-sensitive decisions). Currently, it is unknown to what extent SDM is applied in treatment decisions for these diseases in the Netherlands. OBJECTIVES: Primary, to assess the current extent of SDM in AD and psoriasis in the Netherlands amongst patients and dermatologists. Secondary, to assess the degree to which patients and physicians endorse SDM, to explore which characteristics are related to their preference to be involved in SDM and to identify which barriers and facilitators for SDM they perceive. METHODS: Two similar online surveys, one for patients with AD or psoriasis and one for (resident) dermatologists, were carried out. The surveys comprised validated questionnaires (shared decision making questionnaire (SDM-Q; range 0-100), Control Preference Scale) and study-specific statements mainly regarding barriers and facilitators for SDM. RESULTS: The responses of 219 patients and 147 physicians were analysed. Dermatologists experienced significantly more SDM than patients (SDM-Q 82 vs 55; P < 0.01). Most patients and dermatologists prefer to share treatment decisions. Mainly facilitators for SDM were perceived, including the positive perception of patients and dermatologists regarding SDM. The perceived barriers included lack of continuity of care by the same physician and lack of time. CONCLUSION: Despite the dermatologists' optimistic perspective, patients experience a limited extent of SDM and physicians should be aware of this gap. Improvement of SDM in AD and psoriasis is needed. The positive attitude of patients and dermatologists towards the process and outcome of SDM is important facilitators, while barriers were mainly perceived on an organizational level.

The validity, reliability and acceptability of the SAVASI; a new self-assessment score in vitiligo.

BACKGROUND: Vitiligo is a common depigmenting skin disorder that can influence a patient's quality of life. Although patient-orientated medicine is an emerging concept, a self-assessment tool to assess the degree of depigmentation in vitiligo is not yet available. Therefore, we developed the SAVASI, a self-assessment tool that uses the same basic principles as the VASI. OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity, reliability and acceptability of the SAVASI. METHODS: To assess the validity of the SAVASI, we compared the scores assessed by the patient with the scores of the VASI assessed by the physician. To assess the intra-rater reliability, the correlation between the baseline SAVASI and the SAVASI after 2 weeks was calculated. To assess the acceptability, patients indicated the time needed to complete the SAVASI and the patient assessed the difficulty of the questionnaire on a five-point scale. The Skindex-29 was used to determine the quality of life. The overestimation of the SAVASI compared to the VASI was calculated by subtracting the VASI scores off from the SAVASI scores. RESULTS: A high correlation between the VASI and the SAVASI (ICC 0.97, 95% CI: 0.95-0.98) was found in 60 patients. The intra-rater reliability of the SAVASI (ICC 0.75, 95% CI 0.54-0.87) was adequate in 31 patients. Fifty (83%) of the patients completed the questionnaire within 10 min and only five (8%) of the patients considered the SAVASI hard. We found no correlation between overestimation of the SAVASI score and the Skindex-29 score. CONCLUSION: The SAVASI is a valid, reliable and acceptable self-assessment tool to measure the degree of depigmentation in vitiligo. With the SAVASI the degree of depigmentation can reliably be assessed by the patient themselves which can be useful in large (epidemiological) studies. Furthermore, this could contribute to the patient's disease insight and therapy loyalty.