Rosacea treatment update: recommendations from the global ROSacea COnsensus (ROSCO) panel

BACKGROUND

Rosacea is currently treated according to subtypes. As this does not adequately address the spectrum of clinical presentation (phenotypes), it has implications for patient management. The ROSacea COnsensus panel was established to address this issue.

OBJECTIVES

To incorporate current best treatment evidence with clinical experience from an international expert panel and establish consensus to improve outcomes for patients with rosacea.

METHODS

Seventeen dermatologists and three ophthalmologists reached consensus on critical aspects of rosacea treatment and management using a modified Delphi approach. The panel voted on statements using the responses 'strongly disagree', 'disagree', 'agree' or 'strongly agree'. Consensus was defined as ≥ 75% 'agree' or 'strongly agree'. All voting was electronic and blinded.

RESULTS

The panel agreed on phenotype-based treatments for signs and symptoms presenting in individuals with rosacea. First-line treatments were identified for individual major features of transient and persistent erythema, inflammatory papules/pustules, telangiectasia and phyma, underpinned by general skincare measures. Multiple features in an individual patient can be simultaneously treated with multiple agents. If treatment is inadequate given appropriate duration, another first-line option or the addition of another first-line agent should be considered. Maintenance treatment depends on treatment modality and patient preferences. Ophthalmological referral for all but the mildest ocular features should be considered. Lid hygiene and artificial tears in addition to medications are used to treat ocular rosacea.

CONCLUSIONS

Rosacea diagnosis and treatment should be based on clinical presentation. Consensus was achieved to support this approach for rosacea treatment strategies.

A randomized clinical trial to compare two different approaches in women with chronic pelvic pain

One hundred six patients with chronic pelvic pain were randomly allocated to one of two treatment groups. In the standard-approach group, organic causes of pelvic pain were excluded first and diagnostic laparoscopy was routinely performed. If no somatic cause could be found, attention was given to other causes such as psychological disturbances. In the second group an integrated approach was chosen. From the beginning equal attention was devoted to somatic, psychological, dietary, environmental, and physiotherapeutic factors. In this group, laparoscopy was not routinely performed. Both groups were similar with respect to clinical characteristics of the patients and the severity of their pain as assessed by various pain parameters. Postcoital pain was reported by 27% of the patients. Twenty percent of the patients had had negative sexual experiences such as childhood sexual abuse or rape. Evaluation of the pain 1 year after the institution of treatment revealed that the integrated approach improved pelvic pain significantly more often than the standard approach for three out of four pain parameters (P less than .01). Laparoscopy played no important role in the treatment of pelvic pain. It is concluded that equal attention to both organic and other causative factors from the beginning of therapy is more likely to result in a reduction of pelvic pain than is a standard approach.