Summary Background The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study provides an annually updated resource to study disease‐related morbidity and mortality worldwide. Objectives Here we present the burden estimates for atopic dermatitis (AD), including data from inception of the GBD project in 1990 until 2017. Methods Data on the burden of AD were obtained from the GBD Study. Results Atopic dermatitis (AD) ranks 15th among all nonfatal diseases and has the highest disease burden among skin diseases as measured by disability‐adjusted life‐years (DALYs). Overall, the global DALY rate for AD in 1990 was 121 [95% uncertainty interval (UI) 65·4–201] and remained similar in 2017 at 123 (95% UI 66·8–205). The three countries with the highest DALY rates of AD were Sweden (327, 95% UI 178–547), the UK (284, 95% UI 155–478) and Iceland (277, 95% UI 149–465), whereas Uzbekistan (85·1, 95% UI 45·2–144), Armenia (85·1, 95% UI 45·8–143) and Tajikistan (85·1, 95% UI 46·1–143) ranked lowest. Conclusions The global prevalence rate of AD has remained stable from 1990 to 2017. However, the distribution of AD by age groups shows a bimodal curve with the highest peak in early childhood, decreasing in prevalence among young adults, and a second peak in middle‐aged and older populations. We also found a moderate positive correlation between a country’s gross domestic product and disease burden. GBD data confirm the substantial worldwide burden of AD, which has remained stable since 1990 but shows significant geographical variation. Lifestyle factors, partially linked to affluence, are likely important disease drivers. However, the GBD methodology needs to be developed further to incorporate environmental risk factors, such as ultraviolet exposure, to understand better the geographical and age‐related variations in disease burden.

The evidence-and consensus-based guideline on atopic eczema was developed in accordance with the EuroGuiDerm Guideline and Consensus Statement Development Manual. Four consensus conferences were held between December 2020 and July 2021. Twenty-nine experts (including clinicians and patient representatives) from 12 European countries participated. This first part of the guideline includes general information on its scope and purpose, the health questions covered, target users and a methods section. It also provides guidance on which patients should be treated with systemic therapies, as well as recommendations and detailed information on each systemic drug. The systemic treatment

Funding informationNo support was given by any medical company for development of this document. All meetings were virtual meetings, therefore there were no costs. All participants in the working group filled in a structured form to declare financial or non-financial interests. Disclosures are given in the Supporting information. The Guidelines were approved by the executive committee of the ESCD in

Most moisturisers showed some beneficial effects, producing better results when used with active treatment, prolonging time to flare, and reducing the number of flares and amount of topical corticosteroids needed to achieve similar reductions in eczema severity. We did not find reliable evidence that one moisturiser is better than another.

SummaryBackgroundRosacea is a common chronic facial dermatosis. Classification of rosacea has evolved from subtyping to phenotyping.ObjectivesTo update our systematic review on interventions for rosacea.MethodsWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index and ongoing trials registers (March 2018) for randomized controlled trials. Study selection, data extraction, risk‐of‐bias assessment and analyses were carried out independently by two authors. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) was used to assess certainty of evidence.ResultsWe included 152 studies (46 were new), comprising 20 944 participants. Topical interventions included brimonidine, oxymetazoline, metronidazole, azelaic acid, ivermectin and other topical treatments. Systemic interventions included oral antibiotics, combinations with topical treatments or other systemic treatments. Several studies evaluated laser or light‐based treatment. We present the most current evidence for rosacea management based on a phenotype‐led approach.ConclusionsFor reducing temporarily persistent erythema there was high‐certainty evidence for topical brimonidine and moderate certainty for topical oxymetazoline; for erythema and mainly telangiectasia there was low‐to‐moderate‐certainty evidence for laser and intense pulsed light therapy. For reducing papules/pustules there was high‐certainty evidence for topical azelaic acid and topical ivermectin; moderate‐to‐high‐certainty evidence for doxycycline 40 mg modified release (MR) and isotretinoin; and moderate‐certainty evidence for topical metronidazole, and topical minocycline and oral minocycline being equally effective as doxycycline 40 mg MR. There was low‐certainty evidence for tetracycline and low‐dose minocycline. For ocular rosacea, there was moderate‐certainty evidence that oral omega‐3 fatty acids were effective and low‐certainty evidence for ciclosporin ophthalmic emulsion and doxycycline.