Background: Chronic nodular prurigo (CNPG) is a chronic, inflammatory skin disease, characterized by intense and debilitating pruritus. The pathophysiology is not fully understood, and the condition is difficult to treat with no targeted therapies. The aim of this systematic review was to review the evidence of therapies for non-atopic CNPG and conduct a meta-analysis of the results. Summary: We conducted a systematic review of the literature concerning effect of treatment for non-atopic CNPG. Due to few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and case series, the literature was unfortunately too sparse to conduct a meta-analysis of the results. Instead, we thoroughly report important data from the three existing RCTs and 6 case studies with more than 15 patients. Evaluated therapies include nemolizumab, aprepitant, topical therapy with hydrocortisone and pimecrolimus, thalidomide, UVA phototherapy, pregabalin, and naltrexone. Included RCTs and case studies all had a heterogeneous methodology making direct comparison almost impossible. Key Messages: There is sparse evidence for the currently used therapies for non-atopic CNPG. Several RCTs on new therapies are running or in the pipeline, hopefully providing new, effective, and targeted treatment possibilities for CNPG patients both with and without an atopic predisposition.

Remember EPFI as a differential diagnosis in children with a rash on the scalp and no effect of antibiotic treatment.

Background: Skin symptoms are a common reason for consulting a medical doctor, for example a general practitioner (GP) in countries where GPs function as gatekeepers. Despite this, GPs have very sparse dermatological training in their Residency programme.Objectives: To investigate management and challenges of skin diseases, in particular atopic dermatitis (AD), in general practice from the GPs' point of view.Methods: A survey was sent out to all 298 GPs in the North Region of Denmark on 5 April 2022 and data collection continued until 8 June 2022. The survey contained three sections; demographic information about the GP, patients with dermatological problems in general practice, and lastly load, management, and perception of AD in general practice.Results: A total of 94 GPs (31.5%) responded to the survey. Sixty‐four percent of the GPs reported that 5%–10% of their consultations concerned dermatology, and 25% reported that in more than 10% of their consultations, patients have a secondary skin problem. Top three most frequent skin diagnoses were rated to be seborrhoeic keratoses, children with AD, and acne.Conclusions: Consultations for skin diseases are very common in general practice, and very often, patients bring up their skin issue secondary to another problem. Forty‐three percent of GPs in our study had taken postgraduate training in dermatology, which underlines the need for more dermatological education in the GPs' residency programme. Patients with AD are treated according to guidelines, and GPs find consultations with patients with AD complex. Lastly, there is a high rate of reconsultations for patients with AD.

Background: Patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) are mostly managed by general practitioners (GPs) and practicing dermatologists (PDs) in Denmark. In cases of severe and refractory AD, the primary physician can refer the patient to a specialised dermatology department.Objectives: Aim of the study was to investigate treatment at the time of referral to a specialised dermatology department and the cause stated by the GP in a Danish cohort of AD patients referred to the Department of Dermatology, Aarhus University Hospital from 2019 to 2021.Methods: One hundred and thirty cases were randomly selected via diagnosis codes for AD. Information regarding the cause for referral and treatment given at time of referral was obtained from medical records. 18 cases were excluded due to missing referral in the patients' medical records, other diagnosis than AD or treatment initiation before 2019. The final cohort consisted of 112 cases. Differences between patients referred from GP and PD were analysed with Fisher's exact test.Results: Most cases were referred by PDs (45.5%) and GPs (24.1%). GPs primarily referred due to acute flare‐ups in need of treatment (40.7%), and PDs due to lacking disease control (64.7%), (p‐values < 0.0018). GPs generally included more descriptive information in their referrals than PDs, however, only the difference in mentioning sleep disturbance was significant (p‐value = 0.0144). Topical corticosteroids were the preferred treatments before referral regardless of the referring doctor, with no statistical differences. Topical calcineurin inhibitors were significantly more used among PD‐referred patients compared to GP‐referred patients (p‐value = 0.0018). Systemic therapy was initiated in 45 patients (40.2%) at the tertiary hospital with no differences between referral from either GPs or PDs.Conclusions: The study identified few differences in the referral pattern of AD to a tertiary treatment center from GPs and PDs. No major deviations from Danish guidelines were found.

Background: Pregnancy induces physiological changes that often impact skin health, leading to both the onset and exacerbation of dermatological conditions. Despite potential implications for maternal well‐being and foetal outcomes, evidence‐based treatment and skincare guidance during pregnancy remain limited. Objectives: To investigate the prevalence of dermatological diseases, treatment patterns and changes in disease activity during pregnancy, with particular focus on whether physician counselling influences continuation of treatment. We also explored concerns about product safety and sources of information. Methods: A cross‐sectional questionnaire‐based study was conducted among pregnant women attending routine ultrasound examinations at Aarhus University Hospital from October 2024 to January 2025. The questionnaire addressed demographics, dermatological conditions and treatment, skincare practices, concerns and informational sources. Results: A total of 273 pregnant women responded. One third (33.7%) reported having an active dermatological condition within 1 year prior to pregnancy confirmation; most prevalent were atopic dermatitis (11%), acne (9.2%) and hand eczema (7.3%). More than half of the women (56%) experienced symptom worsening during pregnancy, yet only 24% consulted a healthcare professional. Following pregnancy confirmation, 57.6% discontinued treatment—81.1% without consulting a healthcare professional. Physician consultation was significantly associated with continued treatment (RR = 2.63, 95% CI: 1.55−4.44, p = 0.0005) and identified as protective against treatment discontinuation (OR = 0.11, 95% CI: 0.03−0.40, p = 0.001). Concerns about product safety were common (16.9% for emollients; 35.9% for prescription medication). The majority relied on online sources (50.2%) for information, while 13.9% received professional guidance. Conclusions: There are substantial gaps in dermatological care and skincare guidance during pregnancy. Many women experienced worsening of their dermatological diseases during pregnancy, and many discontinued their treatment without professional input. These findings emphasize the need for evidence‐based information and patient‐centred communication to support informed decision‐making and to improve maternal and foetal health outcomes.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common inflammatory skin disease affecting 5–8% of adults, with many being of reproductive age and potentially experiencing AD- and treatment-related challenges during family planning and pregnancy (FPP). This study examined whether patients with AD receive FPP-related information from their dermatologist and their concerns about pregnancy and breastfeeding. A cross-sectional questionnaire study was conducted among 18–45-year-old patients with AD treated at dermatology departments in university hospitals or private dermatology clinics in Denmark, all undergoing either topical or systemic treatment. A total of 121 patients participated in the study. The most pronounced concern was the heritable nature of AD (88.4%), followed by concerns about the teratogenicity of their treatments (29.8%). Additionally, 37.1% of women expressed concern about their ability to breastfeed. One-third of patients with AD had discussed FPP with their dermatologists prior to pregnancy, and 15% reported having fewer biological children than they desired due to their disease. Adult patients with AD have significant unmet informational needs regarding FPP. Addressing these concerns at appropriate stages in their lives, potentially through structured communication, could provide patients with better opportunities to address their concerns and plan their family life based on comprehensive and accurate information.