Background. Assessment methods for atopic dermatitis (AD) are not standardized, and therapeutic studies are difficult to interpret. Aims. To obtain a consensus on assessment methods in AD and to use a statistical method to develop a composite severity index.Methods. Consensus definitions were given for items used in the scoring system (extent, intensity, subjective) and illustrated for intensity items. Slides were reviewed to address within and between-observer variability by a group of 10 trained clinicians, and data were statistically evaluated with a two way analysis of variance. Two variants of an assessment system were compared in 88 patients at 5 different institutions. Data were analyzed using principal-component analysis. Results. For 5 intensity items studied (erythema, edema/papulation, oozing/crusts, excoriations, lichenification), within- and between-observer variability was good overall, except for edema/papulation which was difficult to assess with slides. In the series of 88 patients, principal-component analysis allowed to extract two unrelated components: the first one accounting for 33% of total variance was interpreted as a ‘severity’ component; the second one, accounting for 18% of variance, was interpreted as a ‘profile’ component distinguishing patients with mostly erythema and subjective symptoms and those with mostly lichenification and dryness and lower subjective symptoms. Of the two evaluation systems used, the one using the rule of nine to assess extent was found more workable than the one using a distribution × intensity product. A scoring index (SCORAD) combining extent, severity and subjective symptoms was mathematically derived from the first system and showed a normal distribution of the population studied. Conclusion. The final choice for the evaluation system was mostly made based on simplicity and easy routine use in outpatient clinics. Based on mathematical appreciation of weights of the items used in the assessment of AD, extent and subjective symptoms account for around 20% each of the total score, intensity items representing 60%. The so-designed composite index SCORAD needs to be further tested in clinical trials.

Progression of hepatitis B in patients with lamivudine-resistant strains is slowed down by adefovir dipivoxil (ADV). Whether the time point of ADV administration (genotypic vs. phenotypic resistance) influences the outcome of therapy is unknown. We compared the outcome of ADV therapy in hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-negative chronic hepatitis B patients with genotypic and phenotypic resistance to lamivudine. Ten milligrams of ADV was administered daily for 2 years to 46 HBeAg-negative patients at the time of phenotypic resistance (group A, >6 log 10 copies/mL of hepatitis B virus [HBV] DNA and high alanine aminotransferase [ALT] levels) and 28 patients at the time of genotypic resistance (group B, 3-6 log 10 copies/mL of HBV-DNA and normal ALT). HBV DNA was assessed every 2 months using Versant 3.0 assay, and lamivudine resistance was confirmed via INNO-LiPA assay in all patients. By month 3, HBV DNA tested negative in all patients from group B compared with only 20 (46%) in group A (P < .0001). The 2-year rates of virological response were 100% in the former patients and 78% in the latter ones (P < .0001). ALT levels remained persistently normal in all group B patients, whereas in group A patients they normalized at rates of 50% at month 6 (P < .0001), 72% at month 12 (P < .01), and 93% at month 24. None of the patients developed ADV resistance or ADV-related side effects. In conclusion, to optimize antiviral treatment in HBeAg-negative patients selecting resistant strains to lamivudine, ADV should be added to lamivudine as soon as genotypic resistance is detected. (HEPATOLOGY 2005;42:1414-1419

The impact of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection on mortality of patients receiving regular dialysis remains unclear. The assessment of the natural history of HCV in dialysis population is difficult because of the low progression of HCV-related liver disease over time and the reduced life expectancy in patients with end-stage renal disease. The aim of the study was to conduct a systematic review of the published medical literature concerning the impact of HCV infection on the survival of patients undergoing maintenance dialysis. The relative risk of mortality was regarded as the most reliable outcome end-point. Study-specific relative risks were weighted by the inverse of their variance to obtain fixed- and random-effects pooled estimates for mortality with HCV across the published studies. We identified seven studies involving 11 589 unique patients on maintenance dialysis; two (29%) were case-control studies. Pooling of study results demonstrated that presence of anti-HCV antibody was an independent and significant risk factor for death in patients on maintenance dialysis. The summary estimate for adjusted relative risk (aRR) (all-cause mortality) was 1.34 with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 1.13-1.59. Heterogeneity statistics, R(i) = 0.48 (P-value by Q-test = 0.13). In a sensitivity analysis including only (n = 5) cohort studies, the pooled aRR was 1.38 (95% CI, 1.20-1.59); heterogeneity statistics R(i) = 0.46. As a cause of death, hepatocellular carcinoma and liver cirrhosis were significantly more frequent among anti-HCV-positive than -negative dialysis patients. Our meta-analysis indicates that anti-HCV-positive patients on dialysis have an increased risk of mortality compared with HCV-negative patients. The excess risk of death in HCV-positive patients may be at least partially attributed to chronic liver disease with its attendant complications.