1% hydrocortisone ointment is an effective treatment of pruritus ani: a pilot randomized controlled crossover trial

Anal pruritus: Don’t look away

Anal pruritus is a common anorectal symptom that can significantly impair a patient’s quality of life, including their mental health. It can be one of the most difficult proctological conditions to treat. Patients often delay seeking medical attention, since it is an embarrassing but non-life-threatening situation. Pruritus ani can be associated with idiopathic and secondary causes, such as anorectal diseases, cancer (anal or colorectal), dermatological and sexually transmitted diseases, fungal infections and systemic diseases. If patients are referred for a colonoscopy, this can sometimes provide the first opportunity to evaluate the perianal area. Classifications of anal pruritus are based on the abnormalities of the perianal skin, one of the most commonly used being the Washington classification. A proper digital anorectal examination is important, as well as an anoscopy to help to exclude anorectal diseases or suspicious masses. Endoscopists should be aware of the common etiologies, and classification of the perianal area abnormalities should be provided in the colonoscopy report. Information on treatment possibilities and follow-up can also be provided. The treatment normally consists of a triple approach: proper hygiene, elimination of irritants, and skin care and protection. Several topical therapies have been described as possible treatments, including steroids, capsaicin, tacrolimus and methylene blue intradermal injections.

A systematic review of 454 randomized controlled trials using the Dermatology Life Quality Index: experience in 69 diseases and 43 countries

BACKGROUND

Over 29 years of clinical application, the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) has remained the most used patient-reported outcome (PRO) in dermatology due to its robustness, simplicity and ease of use.

OBJECTIVES

To generate further evidence of the DLQI's utility in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to cover all diseases and interventions.

METHODS

The methodology followed PRISMA guidelines and included seven bibliographical databases, searching articles published from 1 January 1994 until 16 November 2021. Articles were reviewed independently by two assessors, and an adjudicator resolved any opinion differences.

RESULTS

Of 3220 screened publications, 454 articles meeting the eligibility criteria for inclusion, describing research on 198 190 patients, were analysed. DLQI scores were primary endpoints in 24 (5.3%) of studies. Most studies were of psoriasis (54.1%), although 69 different diseases were studied. Most study drugs were systemic (85.1%), with biologics comprising 55.9% of all pharmacological interventions. Topical treatments comprised 17.0% of total pharmacological interventions. Nonpharmacological interventions, mainly laser therapy and ultraviolet radiation treatment, comprised 12.2% of the total number of interventions. The majority of studies (63.7%) were multicentric, with trials conducted in at least 42 different countries; 40.2% were conducted in multiple countries. The minimal clinically importance difference (MCID) was reported in the analysis of 15.0% of studies, but only 1.3% considered full score meaning banding of the DLQI. Forty-seven (10.4%) of the studies investigated statistical correlation of the DLQI with clinical severity assessment or other PRO/quality of life tools; and 61-86% of studies had within-group scores differences greater than the MCID in 'active treatment arms'. The Jadad risk-of-bias scale showed that bias was generally low, as 91.8% of the studies had Jadad scores of ≥ 3; only 0.4% of studies showed a high risk of bias from randomization. Thirteen per cent had a high risk of bias from blinding and 10.1% had a high risk of bias from unknown outcomes of all participants in the studies. In 18.5% of the studies the authors declared that they followed an intention-to-treat protocol; imputation for missing DLQI data was used in 34.4% of studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review provides a wealth of evidence of the use of the DLQI in clinical trials to inform researchers' and -clinicians' decisions for its further use. Recommendations are also made for improving the reporting of data from future RCTs using the DLQI.

Evaluation, management and future perspectives of anal pruritus: a narrative review

PURPOSE

The without a time limitation. Most recent search was performed on 1st June 2022.

RESULTS

Thorough history and physical examination are very important in view of multiple possible causes of anal pruritus. Most of the focus during examination is drawn on to the perianal region. A digital rectal examination and an anoscopy are essential. It is necessary aim of this narrative review is to overview the classification, diagnostics, possible treatment options and future perspective of anal pruritus.

METHODS

The search was performed by two authors (AD and MJ) independently in the following electronic databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CENTRAL and the Allied and Complementary Medicine Databases (AMED). Search was restricted to English language only to avoid moisture and the use of soaps in the perianal region. Furthermore, the patient should avoid certain foods and increase the intake of fiber. If the symptoms do not resolve, topical steroids, capsaicin (0.006%) and tacrolimus (0.1%) ointments may be used. For intractable cases, intradermal methylene blue injection might give a long-lasting symptom relief.

CONCLUSION

Anal pruritus is a long-term deteriorating quality of life issue. Most of the time it is a symptom with a difficult diagnosis. Thorough history and examination should be performed for the best possible treatment.

Causes and Management of Pruritus Ani

A 48-year-old healthy man presented to the office reporting a long-standing history of anal pruritus. He had tried various over-the-counter creams without much success. Besides an anal fissure in the past, which responded to nitroglycerin ointment, his medical history was unremarkable. On physical examination, he was found to have grade I hemorrhoids and mild fecal smearing on perianal skin. Recent colonoscopy and laboratory work ordered by the primary care provider were normal. He was counseled on common inciting agents and local irritants and was advised on hygiene, diet modification, and stool-bulking agents. The colorectal surgeon recommended that the patient keep a journal about his symptoms, foods, and household chemicals used. He was seen twice more over the course of 6 months to pinpoint the cause of his pruritus. A short-course trial of topical steroid, barrier cream, and topical tacrolimus was not helpful. A biopsy of perianal skin was performed and was unrevealing. Eventually, given the persistence of symptoms, it was decided that he would undergo methylene blue injection to address his pruritus (Fig. 1). The procedure consisted of several intradermal and subcutaneous injections of 10 mL of 1% methylene blue combined with 7.5 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine with adrenaline (1/100,000) and 7.5 mL 0.5% lidocaine. After the methylene blue injection, the severity of his symptoms improved, but pruritus still persisted. A methylene blue injection of the same concentration was repeated in 3 months with complete resolution of symptoms.

A Pain in the Butt: Hemorrhoids, Fissures, Fistulas, and Other Anorectal Syndromes

Painful and bothersome anorectal syndromes can be a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge for clinicians because structural and functional abnormalities may often coexist and require a multidisciplinary approach to management. Although it is often difficult to attribute all of a patient's anorectal symptoms to a singular disorder with definitive intervention and cure, improving quality of life, treating coexistent conditions such as functional constipation and/or defecation disorders, addressing psychological comorbidities if present, and confirming there is no evidence of inflammatory or malignant conditions are top priorities.

Clinical Efficacy of Tacrolimus Ointment + 3% Boric Acid Lotion Joint Chinese Angelica Decoction in Chronic Perianal Eczema

Objective

To unearth the clinical efficacy of tacrolimus ointment + 3% boric acid lotion joint Chinese angelica decoction in chronic perianal eczema.

Methods

Patients with chronic perianal eczema admitted to hospital from June 2018 and June 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients in the control group (n = 38) underwent basic therapy with tacrolimus ointment + 3% boric acid lotion, whereas those in the observation group (n = 38) were given oral Chinese angelica decoction on the basis of the above therapy. Patient's baseline information before therapy and clinical symptoms after therapy were observed and compared, including pruritus ani score, anus drainage and damp score, skin lesion score, skin lesion area score, life quality index score, and IL-2, IL-4, and IgE levels in serum. Overall efficacy in the two groups was also evaluated.

Results

No significant differences were found in the baseline information between the observation group and control group before therapy. After therapy, pruritus ani score (P = 0.023), anus drainage and damp score (P = 0.041), skin lesion score (P = 0.025), and skin lesion area score (P = 0.035) of patients in the observation group were remarkably lower than those in the control group. Significantly higher release levels of clinical symptoms of patients in the observation group were indicated. With respect to the control group, the life quality score (P = 0.020) and IgE level in serum (P = 0.003) of patients in the observation group were significantly lower, while IL-4 level in serum was significantly higher (P = 0.129). The therapy in the observation group achieved better clinical efficacy. Overall efficacy in the observation group was markedly favorable with respect to the control group.

Conclusion

With respect to tacrolimus ointment + 3% boric acid lotion, patients with chronic perianal eczema displayed better clinical efficacy after jointly being treated by Chinese angelica decoction.

2020 guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of cutaneous pruritus

The mechanisms underlying itch are not fully understood. Physicians usually encounter difficulty controlling itch in generalized pruritus. Since only a small percentage of patients with generalized pruritus respond to antihistamines (H₁ receptor antagonists), a variety of itch mediators and mechanisms other than histaminergic signals are considered to be involved in itch for these non-responsive patients. In 2012, we created guidelines for generalized pruritus. Those guidelines have been updated and revised to make some of the definitions, diagnostic terms, and classifications more applicable to daily clinical practice. Cutaneous pruritus as designated in these guidelines is a disease characterized by itch without an observable rash. Generalized pruritus (without skin inflammation) is defined as the presence of itch over a wide area, and not localized to a specific part of the body. This entity includes idiopathic pruritus, pruritus in the elderly, symptomatic pruritus, pregnancy-associated pruritus, drug-induced pruritus, and psychogenic pruritus. Localized pruritus (without skin inflammation) represents fixed itch localized to a specific part of the body, and includes anogenital pruritus, scalp pruritus, notalgia paresthetica, and brachioradial pruritus. These guidelines outline the current concepts and specify the diagnostic methods/treatments for cutaneous pruritus.

German S1 guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of perianal dermatitis (anal eczema)

Perianal dermatitis (anal eczema, perianal eczema) is one of the most common proctological conditions. It may occur as a sequela or a presenting symptom of various proctological, dermatological, allergic or pathogen-induced disorders. The three main types of anal eczema are irritant-toxic, atopic and allergic contact dermatitis. Adequate and successful treatment requires a comprehensive diagnostic workup to determine disease etiology and includes treatment/elimination of causative factors as well as nonpharmacological interventions (avoidance of aggravating factors). In addition, adjuvant topical anti-inflammatory and/or specific symptomatic treatment may be required. The present guidelines contain recommendations for the diagnostic and therapeutic management of perianal dermatitis. Target users of these guidelines are clinicians in the fields of dermatology and proctology, as well as all other specialties involved in the management of patients with perianal dermatitis, both in hospital and office-based settings.

Interventions for chronic pruritus of unknown origin

BACKGROUND

Pruritus is a sensation that leads to the desire to scratch; its origin is unknown in 8% to 15% of affected patients. The prevalence of chronic pruritus of unknown origin (CPUO) in individuals with generalised pruritus ranges from 3.6% to 44.5%, with highest prevalence among the elderly. When the origin of pruritus is known, its management may be straightforward if an effective treatment for the causal disease is available. Treatment of CPUO is particularly difficult due to its unknown pathophysiology.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions for CPUO in adults and children.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following up to July 2019: Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trials registries. We checked the reference lists of included studies for additional references to relevant trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought to include randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials that assessed interventions for CPUO, as defined in category VI ('Other pruritus of undetermined origin, or chronic pruritus of unknown origin') of the International Forum for the Study of Itch (IFSI) classification, in children and adults. Eligible interventions were non-pharmacological or topical or systemic pharmacological interventions, and eligible comparators were another active treatment, placebo, sham procedures, or no treatment or equivalent (e.g. waiting list).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were 'Patient- or parent-reported pruritus intensity' and 'Adverse events'. Our secondary outcomes were 'Health-related quality of life', 'Sleep disturbances', 'Depression', and 'Patient satisfaction'. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We found there was an absence of evidence for the main interventions of interest: emollient creams, cooling lotions, topical corticosteroids, topical antidepressants, systemic antihistamines, systemic antidepressants, systemic anticonvulsants, and phototherapy. We included one study with 257 randomised (253 analysed) participants, aged 18 to 65 years; 60.6% were female. This study investigated the safety and efficacy of three different doses of oral serlopitant (5 mg, 1 mg, and 0.25 mg, once daily for six weeks) compared to placebo for severe chronic pruritus; 25 US centres participated (clinical research centres and universities). All outcomes were measured at the end of treatment (six weeks from baseline), except adverse events, which were monitored throughout. A pharmaceutical company funded this study. Fifty-five per cent of participants suffered from CPUO, and approximately 45% presented a dermatological diagnosis (atopic dermatitis/eczema 37.3%, psoriasis 6.7%, acne 3.6%, among other diagnoses). We unsuccessfully attempted to retrieve outcome data from study authors for the subgroup of participants with CPUO. Participants had pruritus for six weeks or longer. Total study duration was 10 weeks. Participants who received serlopitant 5 mg may have a greater rate of relief of patient-reported pruritus intensity as measured by the visual analogue scale (VAS; a reduction in VAS score indicates improvement) compared to placebo (126 participants, risk ratio (RR) 2.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 3.35; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effects of serlopitant 5 mg compared to placebo on the following outcomes due to very low-certainty evidence: adverse events (127 participants; RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.50); health-related quality of life (as measured by the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI); a higher score indicates greater impairment; 127 participants; mean difference (MD) -4.20, 95% CI -11.68 to 3.28); and sleep disturbances (people with insomnia measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Symptom Questionnaire-Insomnia (PSSQ-I), a dichotomous measure; 128 participants; RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.01). Participants who received serlopitant 1 mg may have a greater rate of relief of patient-reported pruritus intensity as measured by VAS compared to placebo; however, the 95% CI indicates that there may also be little to no difference between groups (126 participants; RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.54; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effects of serlopitant 1 mg compared to placebo on the following outcomes due to very low-certainty evidence: adverse events (128 participants; RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.47); health-related quality of life (DLQI; 128 participants; MD -6.90, 95% CI -14.38 to 0.58); and sleep disturbances (PSSQ-I; 128 participants; RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.84). Participants who received serlopitant 0.25 mg may have a greater rate of relief of patient-reported pruritus intensity as measured by VAS compared to placebo; however, the 95% CI indicates that there may also be little to no difference between groups (127 participants; RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.77; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effects of serlopitant 0.25 mg compared to placebo on the following outcomes due to very low-certainty evidence: adverse events (127 participants; RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.24); health-related quality of life (DLQI; 127 participants; MD -5.70, 95% CI -13.18 to 1.78); and sleep disturbances (PSSQ-I; 127 participants; RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.17). The most commonly reported adverse events were somnolence, diarrhoea, headache, and nasopharyngitis, among others. Our included study did not measure depression or patient satisfaction. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for all outcomes due to indirectness (only 55% of study participants had CPUO) and imprecision. We downgraded outcomes other than patient-reported pruritus intensity a further level due to concerns regarding risk of bias in selection of the reported result and some concerns with risk of bias due to missing outcome data (sleep disturbances only). We deemed risk of bias to be generally low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found lack of evidence to address our review question: for most of our interventions of interest, we found no eligible studies. The neurokinin 1 receptor (NK1R) antagonist serlopitant was the only intervention that we could assess. One study provided low-certainty evidence suggesting that serlopitant may reduce pruritus intensity when compared with placebo. We are uncertain of the effects of serlopitant on other outcomes, as certainty of the evidence is very low. More studies with larger sample sizes, focused on patients with CPUO, are needed. Healthcare professionals, patients, and other stakeholders may have to rely on indirect evidence related to other forms of chronic pruritus when deciding between the main interventions currently used for this condition.

Diagnosis and Management of Anorectal Disorders in the Primary Care Setting

Anorectal disorders are very common among a wide population of patients. Because patients may be embarrassed about the anatomic location of their symptoms, they may present to care late in the course of their illness. Care should be taken to validate patient concerns and normalize fears. This article discusses the diagnoses and management of common anorectal disorders among patients presenting to a primary care physician.

Pruritus Ani

Pruritus ani is a common condition with many different potential causes. Because of this, it can be difficult to treat. It is important to identify and eliminate any inciting factors, which are often unintentional consequences of the patient's attempts to alleviate symptoms. If no reversible cause is found, simple measures with diet modification and perianal hygiene are tried before using topical medications or procedures.

Topical Allium ampeloprasum Subsp Iranicum (Leek) Extract Cream in Patients With Symptomatic Hemorrhoids

Allium ampeloprasum subsp iranicum (Leek) has been traditionally used in antihemorrhoidal topical herbal formulations. This study aimed to evaluate its safety and efficacy in a pilot randomized controlled clinical trial. Twenty patients with symptomatic hemorrhoids were randomly allocated to receive the topical leek extract cream or standard antihemorrhoid cream for 3 weeks. The patients were evaluated before and after the intervention in terms of pain, defecation discomfort, bleeding severity, anal itching severity, and reported adverse events. A significant decrease was observed in the grade of bleeding severity and defecation discomfort in both the leek and antihemorrhoid cream groups after the intervention, while no significant change was observed in pain scores. There was no significant difference between the leek and antihemorrhoid cream groups with regard to mean changes in outcome measures. This pilot study showed that the topical use of leek cream can be as effective as a standard antihemorrhoid cream.

Therapeutic management of anal eczema: an evidence-based review

AIM

To conduct a systematic review of treatments for anal eczema (AE).

METHODS

We conducted a Medline search for clinical trial data for the treatment of perianal diseases including AE, including papers not published in the English language. We assessed the study reports using the system recommended by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine. No meta-analysis was attempted.

RESULTS

The evidence base for topical treatments used to treat AE is very poor: there are very few studies and many of those that exist are of poor quality. The best evidence was found for medications that are yet to be licensed for AE. Among products with existing licences for the treatment of eczema, our assessment found some evidence to support the continued use of mild-to-moderate corticosteroids first line in most patients.

DISCUSSION

Features of the perianal region, and the fact that it is almost always occluded, mean that not all medications recommended in the general treatment guidelines for eczema are appropriate for AE. However, there are no specific treatment guidelines for these patients. This may in part be because of the lack of high-quality evidence-based medicine in this therapy area. Many frequently prescribed medications were developed and licensed many years ago, in an era when clinical trial design was not expected to be as rigorous as it is today.

CONCLUSION

This review highlights the need to conduct more high-quality clinical trials in patients with AE in order that specific guidelines for the management of this difficult proctological condition can be prepared.

Pruritus ani

Pruritus ani is an unpleasant cutaneous sensation that induces the desire to scratch the skin around the anal orifice. It may start insidiously and appears in 1% to 5% of the population. It is classified as primary (idiopathic) pruritus ani when no cause can be found. However, as 25% to 75% of cases have co-existing pathology, a detailed history and examination are necessary. The goal of treatment is asymptomatic, intact, dry, clean perianal skin with reversal of morphological changes. The management of pruritus ani is directed towards the underlying cause. If the diagnosis is idiopathic pruritus ani, the patients can still be managed with great success by eliminating of irritants and scratching, by giving general advice regarding hygiene and lifestyle modification and by using active treatment measures.

Perianal infections: a primer for nonsurgeons

The topic of perianal infections covers a broad range of illnesses that can be difficult to differentiate from each other. As a result, patients may suffer from unnecessary examinations and ineffective or delayed therapeutic interventions. This article reviews common and unusual infectious pathology and inflammatory or malignant conditions that should be considered in the differential diagnosis. Presentations of infectious pathology specific to HIV are discussed. New treatment strategies, where available, are noted.

Pruritus ani: etiology and management

Pruritus ani is a dermatologic condition characterized by an unpleasant itching or burning sensation in the perianal region. This article briefly discusses the incidence and classification of pruritus ani followed by a more lengthy discussion of primary and secondary pruritus ani. The important points are summarized and a simple algorithm is provided for the clinical management of pruritus ani.

The effectiveness of Proctofoam-HC for treatment of hemorrhoids in late pregnancy

OBJECTIVE

Currently no topical anti-hemorrhoidal agents have been studied for effectiveness in pregnancy. This study evaluated the effectiveness of Proctofoam-HC used during the last trimester of pregnancy.

METHODS

In this prospective, open-label, observational study, pregnant women prescribed Proctofoam-HC were asked to complete two telephone interview questionnaires.

RESULTS

A total of 88 women completed the study. All hemorrhoidal symptoms, including pain, pruritus, swelling, itching, decreased significantly (P < 0.001) and overall well-being improved. The improvement was clinically very significant after correction for potential placebo effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Proctofoam-HC appears to provide effective treatment of hemorrhoids in late pregnancy.

Common anorectal disorders: diagnosis and treatment

Anorectal disorders affect men and women of all ages. Their management is not limited to the evaluation and treatment of hemorrhoids. Rather, a spectrum of anorectal disorders ranges from benign and irritating (pruritus ani) to potentially life-threatening (anorectal cancer). Symptoms are nonspecific, which can make the evaluation of patients difficult. In addition, treatment can be frustrating because clinicians are hamstrung by a lack of well-designed, prospective, clinical trials. Some of the most common anorectal disorders include fecal incontinence, pelvic floor dyssynergia, anal fissures, pruritus ani, proctalgia fugax, and solitary rectal ulcer syndrome. This article provides an update on the evaluation and treatment of common anorectal disorders.

Pruritus ani: an approach to an itching condition

Pruritus ani is frequently encountered in children by the primary care physician and the pediatrician. It is mainly due to an infection with pinworms, but fecal soiling, poor hygiene, local irritation, and dietary agents should also be considered. Treatment should be directed at the underlying etiology. Once these have been excluded, both general and specific measures must be initiated. There is almost no experience for local treatment modalities in children, and they cannot currently be recommended.

Intradermal injection of methylene blue for the treatment of refractory pruritus ani

OBJECTIVE

Idiopathic pruritus ani is a common perianal condition that can be refractory to diligent perineal care. We wished to evaluate the efficacy and side effects of intradermal methylene blue for the treatment of refractory pruritus ani.

METHOD

A prospective series of 49 patients with idiopathic pruritus ani, who had failed to improve with perineal care, were treated by a single surgeon. All patients received intradermal injections of methylene blue. Endpoints were patient symptom score, and complications (pain, dysaesthesia, skin necrosis, incontinence and anaphylaxis).

RESULTS

Symptoms improved in 96% and resolved in 57% of patients after one treatment. All four patients who had a second treatment became symptom-free. Seven patients noticed changes in continence, all resolved between 10 days and 6 weeks. Two patients were distressed by their decrease in their perianal sensation. There was no skin necrosis or anaphylaxis.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of refractory pruritus ani by intradermal injection of methylene blue is effective and generally well tolerated.

The Dermatology Life Quality Index 1994-2007: a comprehensive review of validation data and clinical results

BACKGROUND

The Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) is one of the most widely used dermatology-specific quality of life instruments. Over the last 5 years there has been great interest in its use.

OBJECTIVES

To collect and present all information regarding the technical properties and the clinical use of the DLQI from the date it was published to the end of 2007 for use as a single source of reference.

METHODS

A detailed literature search was conducted using electronic reference databases and the DLQI library in the Department of Dermatology, Cardiff University. All publications mentioning any aspect of the DLQI, from the time of its development to the end of 2007, were identified and the data concerning the DLQI in terms of its psychometric analysis, and use in clinical trials, epidemiological studies and health services research, were extracted and tabulated with all the relevant references.

RESULTS

In total, 272 full articles which have included the DLQI were reviewed. Studies described in these articles were divided into five main categories: psychometric studies, descriptive/epidemiological studies, drug (topical and systemic) trials, clinical practice research, and therapeutic interventions. The DLQI has been used in 33 different skin conditions in 32 countries and is available in 55 languages. Psychometric aspects of the DLQI such as validity, reliability, responsiveness to change, factor structure, and minimal important difference were described in 115 studies. The DLQI has been used in 33 studies assessing the effectiveness of 14 different types of therapeutic interventions and in 37 studies evaluating nine types of clinical practice research. Sixty studies have used it alone or in parallel with other instruments as an outcome measure in clinical trials of 18 systemic drugs while 22 studies have used it in 14 different topical drug trials. The DLQI has also been used in 27 multinational studies.

CONCLUSIONS

During the last 14 years there has been a gradual increase in the international use of the DLQI. The brevity and simplicity of use of the DLQI has resulted in its popularity both in clinical practice and in research. However, there are various issues in particular regarding its unidimensionality, differential item functioning, and minimal clinically important difference, which require further research. This article should facilitate the work of potential users of the DLQI by providing a readily available source of references for different aspects of the DLQI.