Jump to content
  • The RRDi endorsed the phenotype classification of rosacea in November 2016.  Galderma acknowledged the phenotype classification about a year later. In November 2017 the NRS has now moved forward with classifying rosacea into phenotypes with its own published paper. [1] Read about phenotype updates of medical authorities and rosacea organizations that have recognized this superior classification of rosacea

    For over fourteen years, rosacea was classified as subtypes, which has been controversial from the beginning. A new direction has emerged in the diagnosis and classification of rosacea which is superior to the subtype classification because the phenotype uses a "a symptom-oriented therapy approach."  

    "Because rosacea can encompass a multitude of possible combinations of signs and symptoms, the following updated classification system is based on phenotypes—observable characteristics that can result from genetic and/or environmental influences—to provide the necessary means of assessing and treating rosacea in a manner that is consistent with each individual patient's experience. The phenotypes and diagnostic criteria are largely in agreement with those recommended by the global rosacea consensus panel in 2016, and at least 1 diagnostic or 2 major phenotypes are required for the diagnosis of rosacea.' [1]

    For more information read the article by the ROSCO panel: 

    ROSCO Panel Recommends New Approach on Rosacea Diagnosis by Phenotype

    Phenotype Questions

    Phenotype Classification - How does it work? Answer.

    Why is the phenotype classification superior to the subtype classification?  Answer

    What distinguishes the phenotype classification from the subtype classification? Answer.

    Applying the Phenotype Approach for Rosacea to Practice and Research

    In the British Journal of Dermatology, May 25, 2018, it states, “Rosacea diagnosis and classification have evolved since the 2002 National Rosacea Society (NRS) expert panel subtype approach. Several working groups are now aligned to a more patient-centric phenotype approach, based on an individual's presenting signs and symptoms. However, subtyping is still commonplace across the field and an integrated approach is required to ensure widespread progression to the phenotype approach." [2]

    ”These practical recommendations are intended to indicate the next steps in the progression from subtyping to a phenotyping approach in rosacea, with the goals of improving our understanding of the disease, facilitating treatment developments, and ultimately improving care for patients with rosacea.” [2]

    "In conclusion, the updated phenotype approach, based on presenting clinical features, is the foundation for current diagnosis, classification, and treatment of rosacea." [3]

    Subtype Classification Inferior to Phenotype Classification
    "Almost a decade and a half has elapsed since the initial proposition of criteria for rosacea diagnosis and grouping into common presentations or subtypes. Reappraisal of these items suggests shortcomings in case-finding and diagnostic accuracy that require revision to facilitate rather than undermine future investigation. Subtyping of rosacea, a post-hoc means of grouping more common presentations, can be and has been subverted inappropriately to imply strict categories without adequate consideration of the varying phenotypic presentation of individuals and the potential for temporal variation. Scales for rosacea severity are also confounded by similar multidimensional aspects represented in subtyping. In clinical investigation, this can interfere with study of the course of singular features of rosacea and their measurement." [4]

    End Notes
    [1] Standard classification and pathophysiology of rosacea: The 2017 update by the National Rosacea Society Expert Committee

    [2] Applying the phenotype approach for rosacea to practice and research.
    Br J Dermatol. 2018 May 25;
    Tan J, Berg M, Gallo RL, Del Rosso JQ

    [3] Skin Therapy Lett. 2021 Jul;26(4):1-8.
    Rosacea: An Update in Diagnosis, Classification and Management
    Cindy Na-Young Kang, Monica Shah, Jerry Tan

    [4]  Shortcomings in rosacea diagnosis and classification



  • Posts

    • If we had 100 core members who subscribe a dollar a month we could see the RRDi website and non profit organization going. Would you be one the core 100 members who subscribe a dollar a month? 
    • Ann Dermatol Venereol. 2024 Jun 6;151(3):103244. doi: 10.1016/j.annder.2023.103244. Online ahead of print. NO ABSTRACT PMID:38848643 | DOI:10.1016/j.annder.2023.103244 {url} = URL to article
    • Indian J Dermatol. 2024 Mar-Apr;69(2):152-158. doi: 10.4103/ijd.ijd_815_22. Epub 2024 Apr 29. ABSTRACT Gluten, a polypeptide hapten, found in many cereals such as barley, wheat, rye, oats, and others, has been recently implicated in a range of cutaneous disorders ranging from chronic plaque psoriasis through psoriatic arthritis, urticaria (chronic as well as paediatric onset), and angioedema to lichen planus, vitiligo, and rosacea. The evidence for them is still not well reviewed. To generate evidence for the causal role of gluten in various dermatological disorders. The Pubmed, MedLine, and EMBASE databases were searched using the keywords "Gluten" and one of the dermatoses, namely, "Atopic Dermatitis", "Vasculitis", "Psoriasis", "Psoriatic Arthritis", "Acne", "Alopecia Areata", and "Immunobullous disorders". All articles published in English for which free full text was available were taken into consideration. The search strategy returned in a total of 1487 articles which were screened for relevance and elimination of duplicates. Ultimately, around 114 articles were deemed suitable. The data were extracted and presented in the narrative review format. A simple and cost-effective solution to many of these chronic and lifelong conditions is to restrict gluten in the diet. However, the dermatologist would do well to remember that in the vast majority of dermatological disorders including the ones listed here, gluten restriction is not warranted and can even lead to nutritional deficiencies. The evidence varied from Grade I for some disorders like psoriatic arthritis to Grade IV to most disorders like acne, vitiligo, vasculitis, and atopic dermatitis. Herein, we review the evidence for each of these conditions and make practical recommendations for gluten restriction in them. PMID:38841247 | PMC:PMC11149804 | DOI:10.4103/ijd.ijd_815_22 {url} = URL to article
    • Skin Appendage Disord. 2024 Jun;10(3):207-214. doi: 10.1159/000536246. Epub 2024 Feb 2. ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION: Rosacea is a common chronic inflammatory dermatosis characterized by erythema, telangiectasia, papules, and pustules on the central face. The frequency of contact sensitization complicating rosacea and its therapy is unknown, with only few studies published in the literature. In the present study, we aimed to evaluate contact sensitivity in patients with rosacea. METHODS: A total of 50 rosacea patients and 50 age- and sex-matched healthy controls were enrolled. Both groups were patch tested with the European Baseline Series. RESULTS: A positive reaction to at least one allergen of the European Baseline Series was observed in 15 (30%) of rosacea patients and 10 (20%) of the healthy controls. Although the rate of positive reaction in the rosacea group was higher than in the controls, no statistically significant difference was documented. In addition, the total number of positive reactions to allergens in the rosacea group was higher than the control group, namely, 26 versus 17. CONCLUSION: Contact hypersensitivity may coexist with rosacea. Its identification holds significant clinical relevance, influencing the long-term management and justifying the application of patch testing in rosacea patients. PMID:38835717 | PMC:PMC11147521 | DOI:10.1159/000536246 {url} = URL to article
    • J Cosmet Dermatol. 2024 Jun 3. doi: 10.1111/jocd.16372. Online ahead of print. ABSTRACT BACKGROUND & AIM: Rosacea is a chronic inflammatory, multifactorial disease for which combination therapy could be an effective treatment. In this study, we evaluate the effect of the combination therapy of brimonidine 0.33% and ivermectin 1% as a single cream for the treatment of papulopustular rosacea. METHOD: A stable and appropriate formulation was prepared by adding the aqueous phase to the lipid phase while being stirred. The stability and physicochemical properties of the formulation were evaluated under accelerated conditions. Twelve patients (36-60 years) with mild to moderate papulopustular rosacea and a Demodex count of five or more were treated with the combination of brimonidine 0.33% and ivermectin 1% cream. Clinician's Erythema Assessment (CEA), Patients Self-Assessment (PSA), skin erythema (ΔE) and lightness (ΔL), and skin biophysical parameters including transepidermal water loss (TEWL), skin hydration, pH, and sebum content, as well as erythema and melanin index and ultrasound parameters, were measured before treatment and 4 and 8 weeks after. Adverse drug reactions were also recorded. RESULTS: CEA and PSA decreased significantly from 3 to 2 after 8 weeks, respectively (p-value = 0.014 for CEA and 0.010 for PSA). ΔE and ΔL, as well as skin erythema index and TEWL improved after 8 weeks of treatment (p < 0.05). Two patients withdrew from the study in the first week because of local adverse effects; one developed flushing following treatment and left the investigation after 4 weeks and another patient withdrew from the study after 4 weeks due to deciding to become pregnant. CONCLUSION: Eight-week treatment with the combination of brimonidine 0.33% and ivermectin 1% was shown to be effective for improvement of erythema and inflammatory lesions in mild to moderate papulopustular rosacea. PMID:38831548 | DOI:10.1111/jocd.16372 {url} = URL to article
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use