[What's new in dermatological treatments?].

Although the isolated clinical cases published are sometimes helpful in individual situations in which the therapeutic options have been exhausted, this type of publication cannot be generalized. For this reason, the selection presented covering the period from November 2009 to October 2010 is to a very large extent based on controlled trials, either because they contribute important information or because they raise great hope for a significant number of patients. For the first time in cutaneous oncology, a treatment (ipilimumab) has significantly increased overall survival in patients with metastatic melanoma (phase III), although this gain remains modest (4-6 months) and adverse immunological effects are frequent (30-40%). A phase I trial with treatment specifically targeting the mutant BRAF protein has shown an objective response in 81% of the patients treated in the metastatic phase of melanoma, thus allowing its development to be pursued. Grouping two studies in a rare tumor such as dermatofibrosarcoma also gives hope with imatinib as a neoadjuvant treatment when the initial tumor is inoperable, with, however, an inconsistent response of approximately 50% and only if the tumor presents reorganization of chromosomes 17 and 22. Cutaneous inflammatory diseases are still dominated by dual therapies in psoriasis, with, notably, an effectiveness trial on etanercept at different doses not showing a difference in efficacy depending on dose for the joint component of psoriasis, but also by the publication of a direct comparison of two dual therapies, ustekinumab versus etanercept. In atopic dermatitis, a controversial article invites one to reflect upon the progress made in the management of children by clinical nurses, as in the Netherlands and in Great Britain, in an attempt to contend with the shortage of dermatologists. Since the use of biotherapies is not the prerogative of psoriasis, infliximab was assessed in a phase II trial in Verneuil disease without demonstrating significant efficacy on the main criterion, but it did show a tendency to reduce the score used. This trial suffered from a weakness both in methodology and statistical power, thus precluding any conclusion. The rarity of therapeutic trials on drug eruptions warrants their mention. A French phase II study gives a glimpse of a trend toward efficacy in terms of survival in the treatment of toxic epidermal necrolysis with cyclosporine. As for infectious dermatosis and sexually transmitted infections, a French multicenter study has shown significantly higher efficacy with ivermectin than with malathion in treating pediculosis without increasing the side effects. Today, however, this systemic treatment cannot be a first-line treatment outside of certain specific situations. A large cohort study (somewhat unsatisfactory in its methodology) has not demonstrated the teratogenicity of antiherpes treatments in 830,000 infants. In prevention of HIV transmission, no microbicidal gel had shown efficacy to date. This has now been accomplished in South Africa with a 1% tenofovir gel. The results of a preliminary trial on therapeutic vaccination against HPV16 proposed to women who are carriers of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia opens the way for wide vaccine therapy of cutaneous virus-induced neoplasia. In conclusion, several articles analyzing the dermatology literature provide an opportunity to reflect on the quality of such articles, Boutron's being absolutely in-dis-pen-sa-ble!