Rosacea

Most cited protocols related to «Rosacea»

Each participating center was asked to submit data on 10 to 12 consecutive patients with a clinical diagnosis of SLE and 12 to 15 controls. The controls were to consist of consecutively seen patients with one of the following diagnoses: rheumatoid arthritis, myositis, chronic cutaneous lupus, undifferentiated connective tissue disease, vasculitis, primary antiphospholipid antibody syndrome, scleroderma, fibromyalgia, Sjögren syndrome, rosacea, psoriasis, sarcoidosis and juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Because it was recognized that important control groups , including chronic cutaneous lupus, which had not necessarily been part of previous efforts, needed to be represented, cases were also contributed by a number of dermatologists.

Petri M., Orbai A.M., Alarcón G.S., Gordon C., Merrill J.T., Fortin P.R., Bruce I.N., Isenberg D., Wallace D.J., Nived O., Sturfelt G., Ramsey-Goldman R., Bae S.C., Hanly J.G., Sanchez-Guerrero J., Clarke A., Aranow C., Manzi S., Urowitz M., Gladman D., Kalunian K., Costner M., Werth V.P., Zoma A., Bernatsky S., Ruiz-Irastorza G., Khamashta M.A., Jacobsen S., Buyon J.P., Maddison P., Dooley M.A., van Vollenhoven R.F., Ginzler E., Stoll T., Peschken C., Jorizzo J.L., Callen J.P., Lim S.S., Fessler B.J., Inanc M., Kamen D.L., Rahman A., Steinsson K., Franks AG J.r., Sigler L., Hameed S., Fang H., Pham N., Brey R., Weisman M.H., McGwin G J.r, & Magder L.S. (2012). Derivation and Validation of Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics Classification Criteria for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus. Arthritis and rheumatism, 64(8), 2677-2686.

Publication 2012

Antiphospholipid Syndrome Dermatologist Dermatosclerosis Diagnosis Fibromyalgia Juvenile Arthritis Lupus Erythematosus, Chronic Cutaneous Myositis Patients Psoriasis Rheumatoid Arthritis Rosacea Sarcoidosis Sjogren's Syndrome Undifferentiated Connective Tissue Diseases Vasculitis Vision

Rosacea Expert Panel Consensus

The 2019 expert panel consisted of 19 dermatologists, representing Argentina (n = 1), Brazil (n = 1), Canada (n = 1), France (n = 1), Germany (n = 2), India (n = 1), Italy (n = 1), the Netherlands (n = 1), Qatar (n = 1), Singapore (n = 1), South Africa (n = 1), the U.K. (n = 1) and the U.S.A. (n = 6); and two ophthalmologists, one from Germany and one from the U.S.A. Two chairpersons from the main panel oversaw the process and were involved in panel selection and the Delphi design. Panel members were selected for their contribution to the rosacea field, and their global expertise with a range of skin phototypes, treatment modalities and ocular rosacea.

Schaller M., Almeida L.M., Bewley A., Cribier B., Del Rosso J., Dlova N.C., Gallo R.L., Granstein R.D., Kautz G., Mannis M.J., Micali G., Oon H.H., Rajagopalan M., Steinhoff M., Tanghetti E., Thiboutot D., Troielli P., Webster G., Zierhut M., van Zuuren E.J, & Tan J. (2019). Recommendations for rosacea diagnosis, classification and management: update from the global ROSacea COnsensus 2019 panel. The British Journal of Dermatology, 182(5), 1269-1276.

Publication 2019

Dermatologist Ocular Rosacea Ophthalmologists Rosacea Skin

Facial Skin Biopsy Sampling for Rosacea and HS

All skin biopsies were obtained from the central face of female HS or patients with rosacea (aged 20–50 years) from the Department of Dermatology in Xiangya Hospital, Central South University. A total of 32 female rosacea patients diagnosed with rosacea by clinical and pathologic examination and a total of 28 age‐matched female HS were enrolled in this study. Rosacea disease severity was assessed using CGS Score as previously described (Sanchez et al,2005). The information of patients and HS is listed in Appendix Table S1. The use of all human samples was approved by the ethical committee of the Xiangya Hospital of Central South University and written informed consent was obtained from all participants, and the experiments conformed to the principles set out in the WMA Declaration of Helsinki and the Department of Health and Human Services Belmont Report.

Deng Z., Chen M., Liu Y., Xu S., Ouyang Y., Shi W., Jian D., Wang B., Liu F., Li J., Shi Q., Peng Q., Sha K., Xiao W., Liu T., Zhang Y., Zhang H., Wang Q., Sun L., Xie H, & Li J. (2021). A positive feedback loop between mTORC1 and cathelicidin promotes skin inflammation in rosacea. EMBO Molecular Medicine, 13(5), e13560.

Full text: Click here

Publication 2021

Biopsy Face Homo sapiens Indocyanine Green Patients Rosacea Skin Woman

Mouse Model of LL37-Induced Rosacea

The LL37‐induced rosacea‐like mouse model was generated as previously described (Yamasaki et al,2007). Briefly, 8‐week‐old WT, Raptor cKO, and TSC2^+/− mice were shaved a day before injection and then on the back skin were intradermally injected with LL37 peptide (40 μl, 320 μM) or control vehicle twice a day for 2 days. Skin inflammation of mouse model was evaluated by the severity of erythema and edema as previously described (Chen et al,2019). Briefly, the redness score was evaluated from 1 to 5, and 5 being the reddest. The redness area was measured by stereomicroscope measurements (Leica S8AP0, Leica, Germany).

Full text: Click here

Publication 2021

Dermatitis Edema Erythema Mice, Laboratory Peptides Raptors Rosacea Skin Tuberous Sclerosis 2

Evaluating Skin Barrier Function Through Multimodal Measurements

The measurements took place at the right volar forearm, because this location is easy to access, mainly refrained from UV‐light damage, hair, and sebaceous glands, and often used as a standard anatomical site for skin barrier studies.³, ²², ²³, ²⁴ All procedures were performed by one investigator (JGML). A circular area of approx. 3 × 3 cm was demarked with a pen at this location. The demarked skin was acclimatized to ambient air (room temperature: 22‐26°C; air humidity: 40%‐65%) for at least 10 minutes before start of measurements. Volunteers were placed in upright, sitting position during all study procedures.
First, SCH and TEWL were measured with the GPSkin once at the air‐exposed forearm. Then, SCH was determined by performing one measurement with the Epsilon. The Snapshot mode was used with a 5 seconds delay after first skin contact, and the average of three frames was calculated automatically. For both devices, moderate pressure was applied to keep contact with the skin surface. Thirdly, TEWL was measured with the Aquaflux. After calibration of this device, two measurements were performed with standard settings and a maximum measurement time of 180 seconds. The average of the two measurements was calculated. The Aquaflux was kept steady and perpendicular to the skin surface with very light skin pressure during measurements.
Next, the skin barrier of the demarked forearm location was disturbed using tapestripping, a noninvasive, painless, widely applied procedure to analyze SC barrier function without interfering with deeper, living epidermal keratinocytes.⁹, ²⁵, ²⁶, ²⁷, ²⁸, ²⁹ Repetitive adhesive tapes were applicated to the skin for 10 seconds with a standardized pressure pen (150 g/cm²; D'Squame) and sequentially removed until the skin became partly to homogeneously refulgent, corresponding to partial to almost complete removal of the SC; 13‐33 tapes per volunteer were needed. In this way, a wide range of SCH and TEWL values was obtained.
Directly after the tapestripping procedure, GPSkin, Epsilon, and Aquaflux measurements were repeated at the demarked location as described above. Lastly, one GPSkin measurement per cheek site was performed in each volunteer for later comparison to rosacea patients in pilot 2 (Figure 1).

Logger J.G., Driessen R.J., de Jong E.M, & van Erp P.E. (2020). Value of GPSkin for the measurement of skin barrier impairment and for monitoring of rosacea treatment in daily practice. Skin Research and Technology, 27(1), 15-23.

Publication 2020

Body Regions Cheek Epidermis Forearm Hair Humidity Keratinocyte Light Medical Devices Neoplasm Metastasis Patients Pressure Reading Frames Rosacea Sebaceous Glands Skin Ultraviolet Rays Voluntary Workers

Most recents protocols related to «Rosacea»

Protein Interaction Network Analysis of GBH and Rosacea

A PPI network analysis was performed to confirm the interaction between the proteins common between GBH and rosacea. This process was performed using the StringApp ver. 1.7.0. (Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Protein Research, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark) using Cytoscape software. This application is based on the STRING database, a representative database that integrates all direct (physical) and indirect (functional) data between proteins. This database collects and predicts PPI information through 4 main sources: co-expression analysis, signal sharing system analysis between genes, text mining, and computer prediction based on gene ontology (GO). A confidence score was assigned based on the 4 resources above, where a high score was >0.700, a medium score was between 0.400 and 0.700, and a low score was <0.400.^{[35 (link)]}In addition, CytoNCA application ver. 2.1.6. (School of Information Science and Engineering, Central South University, Changsha, China) was used to confirm the core genes in the PPI network. Screening was conducted using the following indicators that reflect the topological characteristics of the network: betweenness centrality, closeness centrality, degree centrality, eigenvector centrality, local average connectivity-based method, and network centrality. Nodes with all 6 indicators exceeding the average value were filtered and set as core genes.^{[36 (link)]}