Background Several new genes and clinical subtypes have been identified since publication in 2014 of the report of the last international consensus meeting on epidermolysis bullosa (EB). Objective We sought to re‐classify disorders with skin fragility, with a focus on EB, based on new clinical and molecular data. Methods This was a consensus expert review. Results In this latest consensus report, we introduce the concept of genetic disorders with skin fragility, of which classical EB represents the prototype. Other disorders with skin fragility, where blisters are a minor part of the clinical picture or are not seen because skin cleavage is very superficial, are classified as separate categories. These include peeling skin disorders, erosive disorders, hyperkeratotic disorders, and connective tissue disorders with skin fragility. Because of the common manifestation of skin fragility, these “EB‐related” disorders should be considered under the EB umbrella in terms of medical and socioeconomic provision of care. Conclusion The proposed classification scheme should be of value both to clinicians and researchers, emphasizing both clinical and genetic features of EB.

In the primary analysis of the ERIVANCE BCC trial, vismodegib, the first US Food and Drug Administration–approved Hedgehog pathway inhibitor, showed objective response rates (ORRs) by independent review facility (IRF) of 30% and 43% in metastatic basal cell carcinoma (mBCC) and locally advanced BCC (laBCC), respectively. ORRs by investigator review were 45% (mBCC) and 60% (laBCC). Herein, we present long-term safety and final investigator-assessed efficacy results in patients with mBCC or laBCC. One hundred four patients with measurable advanced BCC received oral vismodegib 150 mg once daily until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary end point was IRF-assessed ORR. Secondary end points included ORR, duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival, overall survival (OS), and safety. At data cutoff (39 months after completion of accrual), 8 patients were receiving the study drug (69 patients in survival follow-up). Investigator-assessed ORR was 48.5% in the mBCC group (all partial responses) and 60.3% in the laBCC group (20 patients had complete response and 18 patients had partial response). ORRs were comparable across patient subgroups, including aggressive histologic subtypes (eg, infiltrative BCC). Median DOR was 14.8 months (mBCC) and 26.2 months (laBCC). Median OS was 33.4 months in the mBCC cohort and not estimable in the laBCC cohort. Adverse events remained consistent with clinical experience. Thirty-three deaths (31.7%) were reported; none were related to vismodegib. This long-term update of the ERIVANCE BCC trial demonstrated durability of response, efficacy across patient subgroups, and manageable long-term safety of vismodegib in patients with advanced BCC. This study was registered prospectively with Clinicaltrials.gov , number NCT00833417 on January 30, 2009.

Our scientific knowledge of bullous pemphigoid (BP) has dramatically progressed in recent years. However, despite the availability of various therapeutic options for the treatment of inflammatory diseases, only a few multicenter controlled trials have helped to define effective therapies in BP. A major obstacle in sharing multicenter-based evidences for therapeutic efforts is the lack of generally accepted definitions for the clinical evaluation of patients with BP. Common terms and end points of BP are needed so that experts in the field can accurately measure and assess disease extent, activity, severity, and therapeutic response, and thus facilitate and advance clinical trials. These recommendations from the International Pemphigoid Committee represent 2 years of collaborative efforts to attain mutually acceptable common definitions for BP and proposes a disease extent score, the BP Disease Area Index. These items should assist in the development of consistent reporting of outcomes in future BP reports and studies.

Background: Little information is available regarding the burden of living with and managing epidermolysis bullosa, including the distinct challenges faced by patients with different disease types/subtypes. Methods: A 90-question/item survey was developed to collect demographics, diagnostic data, management practices, and burden of illness information for patients with epidermolysis bullosa living in the United States. Recruitment was conducted via email and social media in partnership with epidermolysis bullosa patient advocacy organizations in the United States, and the survey was conducted via telephone interview by a third-party health research firm. Respondents aged ≥ 18 years with a confirmed diagnosis of epidermolysis bullosa or caring for a patient with a confirmed diagnosis of epidermolysis bullosa were eligible to participate in the survey. Results: In total, 156 responses were received from patients (n = 63) and caregivers (n = 93) representing the epidermolysis bullosa types of simplex, junctional, and dystrophic (subtypes: dominant and recessive). A large proportion of patients (21%) and caregivers (32%) reported that the condition was severe or very severe, and 19% of patients and 26% of caregivers reported a visit to an emergency department in the 12 months prior to the survey. Among the types/subtypes represented, recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa results in the greatest wound burden, with approximately 60% of patients and caregivers reporting wounds covering > 30% of total body area. Wound care is time consuming and commonly requires significant caregiver assistance. Therapeutic options are urgently needed and reducing the number and severity of wounds was generally ranked as the most important treatment factor. Conclusions: Survey responses demonstrate that epidermolysis bullosa places a considerable burden on patients, their caregivers, and their families. The limitations caused by epidermolysis bullosa mean that both patients and caregivers must make difficult choices and compromises regarding education, career, and home life. Finally, survey results indicate that epidermolysis bullosa negatively impacts quality of life and causes financial burden to patients and their families.