National survey of UK Dermatologists demonstrates significant variation in how to obtain consent for dermatological procedures.

Consent must be undertaken prior to any dermatological procedure; however, in doing this, the clinician needs to ensure consent is valid and satisfies the principles of determining material risk. We aimed to assess variations in obtaining consent in the UK and understanding of material risk through a nationally distributed survey to members of the British Society for Dermatological Surgery and British Association of Dermatologists. Of 165 responses, we found that written consent was being obtained for all procedures in 73.9% of cases and typically at the time of procedure in the operating room/theatre (78.8%). Fifty-seven per cent of respondents were not familiar with the term 'material risk' and almost one-third were not aware of the Montgomery vs. Lanarkshire ruling, which replaced the Bolam test in 2015. We would encourage readers to be aware of these changes to consent law in the UK and how it might affect their approach to obtaining consent.

What's new in atopic eczema? An analysis of systematic reviews published in 2017. Part 1: treatment and prevention.

This review forms part of a series of annual updates that summarize the evidence base for atopic eczema (AE). It provides a summary of key findings from 25 systematic reviews that were published or indexed during 2017, and focuses on the treatment and prevention of AE. There is high-quality evidence to demonstrate that dupilumab is better than placebo for the treatment of AE, is not associated with a higher incidence of adverse effects and does not increase the risk of infection compared with placebo; however, comparison studies with other systemic treatments are necessary. Topical tofacitinib is a promising treatment for mild-moderate AE, but currently lacks sufficient evidence from well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing with other active treatments. Topical doxepin may be effective for pruritus in AE, but available studies have short follow-up periods and longer-term outcomes are needed. Bleach baths were no more effective than water baths alone at reducing AE severity. Topical antibiotics cannot be recommended for infected AE, owing to insufficient evidence of benefit. There is little comparison of different emollients in RCTs, but overall evidence indicates that they reduce AE severity, are steroid-sparing and lead to better outcomes in combination with topical corticosteroids (TCS) than TCS alone. No clear benefit was demonstrated for vitamin D/C/E supplementation in pregnancy for eczema prevention.

Long-term management of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis with dupilumab and concomitant topical corticosteroids (LIBERTY AD CHRONOS): a critical appraisal.

AIM: Blauvelt et al. aimed to compare the long-term efficacy and safety of dupilumab with medium-potency topical corticosteroids (TCS) vs. placebo with TCS in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). SETTING AND DESIGN: This multicentre randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in hospitals, clinics and academic institutions across 161 sites in 14 countries. STUDY EXPOSURE: Adults with moderate-to-severe AD were randomly assigned (3: 1: 3) to receive subcutaneous dupilumab 300 mg once weekly plus TCS, dupilumab 300 mg every 2 weeks plus TCS or placebo plus TCS until week 52. OUTCOMES: Co-primary efficacy end points were percentage of patients achieving Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) 0/1 and 2 points or higher improvement from baseline, and Eczema Area and Severity Index 75% improvement from baseline (EASI-75) at week 16. RESULTS: In total, 740 patients were included in the trial: 319 were randomly assigned to dupilumab once weekly, 106 to dupilumab every 2 weeks and 315 to the placebo arm. At week 16, more patients in the dupilumab groups achieved the co-primary end points: IGA 0/1 [39% (n = 125) once-weekly dosing, 39% (n = 41) every 2 weeks dosing vs. 12% (n = 39) receiving placebo; P < 0·0001] and EASI-75 [64% (n = 204) and 69% (n = 73) vs. 23% (n = 73); P < 0·0001]. While no new safety signals were identified, adverse effects were noted in 261 (83%) of those receiving dupilumab once weekly plus TCS, 97 (88%) receiving dupilumab every 2 weeks plus TCS and 266 (84%) for those receiving placebo plus TCS. Rates of conjunctivitis, injection site reactions and local herpes simplex infections were higher in the dupilumab groups than in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Blauvelt et al. concluded that dupilumab treatment added to TCS improved AD up to week 52 vs. TCS alone, and also demonstrated acceptable safety.

Do perioperative antibiotics reduce the risk of surgical-site infections following excision of ulcerated skin cancers? A Critically Appraised Topic.

AIM: To review the efficacy of perioperative antibiotics in reducing the risk of surgical-site infections (SSIs) following excision of ulcerated skin cancers. SETTING AND DESIGN: Study selection, data extraction and analysis were carried out independently by four authors. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported in the English language were included. INCLUDED STUDIES: RCTs in the English language in which patients received perioperative topical, intralesional or oral antibiotics for dermatological surgery, including Mohs micrographic surgery in general practice, dermatology or plastic surgery departments, were included. OUTCOME: The proportion of participants developing SSI following excision of skin lesions. RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs were identified from our literature search of PubMed and Embase, which evaluated SSI following use of topical (n = 5), oral (n = 3), intramuscular (n = 2), intravenous (n = 1) and intralesional antibiotics (n = 2) in dermatological surgery. Two RCTs specifically investigated SSIs in ulcerated skin cancer excisions; one RCT investigated the SSI rate following surgical treatment specifically for ulcerated skin cancers in individuals randomized to topical antibiotics vs. oral cephalexin; and one RCT compared intravenous cefazolin with no antibiotic, demonstrating significant reduction in SSI rates for ulcerated tumours (P = 0·04). CONCLUSIONS: The heterogeneity of the RCTs included in this study makes it difficult to make a direct comparison of the outcomes measured. High-quality evidence demonstrating a beneficial effect of the use of perioperative antibiotics to prevent SSI following excision of ulcerated skin cancers is lacking. In the absence of an evidence base, we propose that a well-designed multicentre RCT could evaluate the effect of perioperative antibiotics following excision of ulcerated tumours, and potentially reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescription.