Rosacea Core Domain Set for Clinical Trials and Practice: A Consensus Statement.

Importance: Inconsistent reporting of outcomes in clinical trials of rosacea is impeding and likely preventing accurate data pooling and meta-analyses. There is a need for standardization of outcomes assessed during intervention trials of rosacea. Objective: To develop a rosacea core outcome set (COS) based on key domains that are globally relevant and applicable to all demographic groups to be used as a minimum list of outcomes for reporting by rosacea clinical trials, and when appropriate, in clinical practice. Evidence Review: A systematic literature review of rosacea clinical trials was conducted. Discrete outcomes were extracted and augmented through discussions and focus groups with key stakeholders. The initial list of 192 outcomes was refined to identify 50 unique outcomes that were rated through the Delphi process Round 1 by 88 panelists (63 physicians from 17 countries and 25 patients with rosacea in the US) on 9-point Likert scale. Based on feedback, an additional 11 outcomes were added in Round 2. Outcomes deemed to be critical for inclusion (rated 7-9 by ≥70% of both groups) were discussed in consensus meetings. The outcomes deemed to be most important for inclusion by at least 85% of the participants were incorporated into the final core domain set. Findings: The Delphi process and consensus-building meetings identified a final core set of 8 domains for rosacea clinical trials: ocular signs and symptoms; skin signs of disease; skin symptoms; overall severity; patient satisfaction; quality of life; degree of improvement; and presence and severity of treatment-related adverse events. Recommendations were also made for application in the clinical setting. Conclusions and Relevance: This core domain set for rosacea research is now available; its adoption by researchers may improve the usefulness of future trials of rosacea therapies by enabling meta-analyses and other comparisons across studies. This core domain set may also be useful in clinical practice.

Voting behavior during FDA Medical Device Advisory Committee panel meetings.

OBJECTIVES: During premarket review, the US Food and Drug Administration may ask its Medical Device Advisory Committee (MDAC) Panels to assess the safety and effectiveness of medical devices being considered for approval. The objective of this study is to assess the relationship, if any, between individual votes and Panel recommendations and: (1) the composition of Panels, specifically the expertise and demographic features of individual members; or (2) Panel members' propensity to speak during Panel deliberations. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of routinely collected data from voting members of MDAC panels convened between January 2011 to June 2016 to consider premarket approval. Data sources were verbatim transcripts available publicly from the FDA. Number of words spoken, directionality of votes on device approval, profession, and demographics were collected. RESULTS: 658,954 words spoken by 536 members during 49 meetings of 11 Panels were analyzed. Based on multivariate analysis, biostatisticians spoke more (+373 words; P = 0.0002), and women (-187 words; P = 0.0184) and other non-physician voting members less (-213 words; P = 0.0306), than physicians. Speaking more was associated with abstaining (P = 0.0179), and with voting against the majority (P = 0.0153). Non-physician, non-biostatistician members (P = 0.0109), and those having attended more meetings as a voting member (P = 0.0249) were more likely to vote against approval. In bivariable analysis, unanimous Panels had a greater proportion of biostatisticians (mean 0.1580; 95% CI 0.1237-0.1923) than non-unanimous Panels (0.1107; 95% CI 0.0912-0.1301; p = 0.0201). CONCLUSIONS: Panelists likely to vote against the majority include non-physician, non-biostatisticians; experienced Panelists; and more talkative members. The increased presence of biostatisticians on Panels leads to greater voting consensus. Having a diversity of opinions on Panels, including in sufficient numbers those members likely to dissent from majority views, may help ensure that a diversity of opinions are aired before decision-making.

Development of a core outcome set for basal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: There is variation in the outcomes reported in clinical studies of basal cell carcinoma. This can prevent effective meta-analyses from answering important clinical questions. OBJECTIVE: To identify a recommended minimum set of core outcomes for basal cell carcinoma clinical trials. METHODS: Patient and professional Delphi process to cull a long list, culminating in a consensus meeting. To be provisionally accepted, outcomes needed to be deemed important (score, 7-9, with 9 being the maximum) by 70% of each stakeholder group. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-five candidate outcomes identified via a systematic literature review and survey of key stakeholders were reduced to 74 that were rated by 100 health care professionals and patients in 2 Delphi rounds. Twenty-seven outcomes were provisionally accepted. The final core set of 5 agreed-upon outcomes after the consensus meeting included complete response; persistent or serious adverse events; recurrence-free survival; quality of life; and patient satisfaction, including cosmetic outcome. LIMITATIONS: English-speaking patients and professionals rated outcomes extracted from English language studies. CONCLUSION: A core outcome set for basal cell carcinoma has been developed. The use of relevant measures may improve the utility of clinical research and the quality of therapeutic guidance available to clinicians.

Protocol for development of a core outcome set for clinical trials in melasma.

INTRODUCTION: Melasma is a pigmentation disorder of the skin. Characterised by brown to gray-brown patches on the face and neck, the condition predominantly affects women and has been associated with pregnancy, hormonal variation and sun exposure. Melasma can be disfiguring and anxiety-provoking, and quality of life is often adversely impacted. Management includes sun protection, laser and energy device therapy, topical and oral skin-bleaching agents and chemical peels. While clinical trials of melasma exist, there is a lack of consistency in reported outcomes, which has been a barrier to the aggregation of data in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This protocol describes a planned process for development of a minimum set of outcomes (ie, 'core outcome set') that should be measured in all clinical trials of melasma. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An exhaustive list of potential outcomes will be extracted from four sources: (1) systematic literature review of outcomes in clinical trials; (2) semistructured patient interviews; (3) brochures, pamphlets, clinical trial registries, and other published and unpublished sources and documentation; and (4) interviews with non-patient, non-physician stakeholders, including federal regulators, industry scientists and non-physician providers. An international two-round Delphi process will then be performed to identify the outcomes deemed most important to patients and physicians. Subsequently, a consensus meeting will be convened to review and process the results, and to vote on a final set of core outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was provided by the Northwestern University Institutional Review Board (protocol ID: STU00201637). This study is registered with both the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials and Cochrane Skin-Core Outcome Set Initiative initiatives, and this protocol is in accordance with the guidelines for protocol development of both groups. All findings from the study described in this protocol will be disseminated to all stakeholders involved in the development process and will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020214189.

Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation: protocol for development of a core outcome set for clinical trials.

Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) is a disorder of pigmentation that is a common presenting complaint, especially in individuals with skin of color. It is associated with a significant psychological burden and decrement of quality of life. Management options include photoprotection, topical lightening agents, and lasers and energy devices. Clinical trials of melasma report a diversity of outcomes, which often impedes synthesis of results across trials, or comparison of results associated with different treatment modalities. This protocol describes the design of a consensus process that would culminate in the development of a core set of outcomes to be assessed in all clinical trials for PIH. A long list of candidate outcomes will be developed through a systematic review, combined with semi-structured interviews with various stakeholders, including patients, scientists, regulators, and health care professionals. This long list of outcomes will be reviewed and refined by a steering committee. Then two rounds of Delphi surveys of patient and physician groups, respectively, will be used to cull the list, with provisional inclusion of those items deemed "important" by 70% of the respondents. A consensus meeting will be held virtually or in person to vote on these items, and also to consider any changes necessary before acceptance of a final core outcome set. Development of a core outcome set for PIH is expected to improve and standardize outcomes reporting in current and future clinical trials. This, in turn, may facilitate aggregation of research results and permit comparison of outcomes across multiple studies.

Infantile scrotal hemangioma with transverse testicular ectopia.

Transverse testicular ectopia is a rare structural anomaly of abnormal testicular descent. We report a case of a 3-month-old boy with hemiscrotal infantile hemangioma and contralateral transverse testicular ectopia.

Impact factor of major dermatology journals and the increasing influence of dermatology in the house of medicine.

BACKGROUND: Journal impact factor (JIF) is a bibliometric proxy of relative journal importance. Mean dermatology JIF has nearly doubled since 1997. The reasons behind the increase have not been previously explored. OBJECTIVE: To assess factors contributing to rising dermatology JIF. METHODS: This bibliometric study utilized publicly-available citation and JIF data from the Thomson-Reuters InCites Journal Citation Reports "Dermatology and Venereology" category, from 1997-2017. RESULTS: From 1997-2017, aggregate dermatology JIF increased by 70%, associated with a 64% increase in JIF numerator (total journal citations) and a 3% decrease in JIF denominator (total journal articles and reviews). In the four highest-JIF journals (JAAD, JAMA Dermatology/Archives of Dermatology, JID, and BJD), there was an increase in citations coming from non-dermatology specialty journals, including oncology, rheumatology, and multidisciplinary sciences. Journal impact factor was positively correlated with five JIF alternatives. Immediacy Index, a reflection of how fast dermatology journals are cited, increased four-fold (P<0.001). LIMITATIONS: Impact factor numerator/denominator data were not available before 1999. CONCLUSIONS: The nearly two-fold rise in dermatology JIF from 1997-2017 was associated with increased citations, an increasing proportion of which came from non-dermatology journals. This may reflect growing influence of dermatology research within both dermatology and other fields of medicine.

Core Outcome Set for Actinic Keratosis Clinical Trials.

Importance: Although various treatments have been found in clinical trials to be effective in treating actinic keratosis (AK), researchers often report different outcomes. Heterogeneous outcome reporting precludes the comparison of results across studies and impedes the synthesis of treatment effectiveness in systematic reviews. Objective: To establish an international core outcome set for all clinical studies on AK treatment using systematic literature review and a Delphi consensus process. Evidence Review: Survey study with a formal consensus process. The keywords actinic keratosis and treatment were searched in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library to identify English-language studies investigating AK treatments published between January 1, 1980, and July 13, 2015. Physician and patient stakeholders were nominated to participate in Delphi surveys by the Measurement of Priority Outcome Variables in Dermatologic Surgery Steering Committee members. All participants from the first round were invited to participate in the second round. Outcomes reported in randomized controlled clinical trials on AK treatment were rated via web-based e-Delphi consensus surveys. Stakeholders were asked to assess the relative importance of each outcome in 2 Delphi survey rounds. Outcomes were provisionally included, pending the final consensus conference, if at least 70% of patient or physician stakeholders rated the outcome as critically important in 1 or both Delphi rounds and the outcome received a mean score of 7.5 from either stakeholder group. Data analysis was performed from November 5, 2018, to February 27, 2019. Findings: A total of 516 outcomes were identified by reviewing the literature and surveying key stakeholder groups. After deduplication and combination of similar outcomes, 137 of the 516 outcomes were included in the Delphi surveys. Twenty-one physicians and 12 patients participated in round 1 of the eDelphi survey, with 17 physicians (81%) retained and 12 patients (100%) retained in round 2. Of the 137 candidate outcomes, 9 met a priori Delphi consensus criteria, and 6 were included in the final outcomes set after a consensus meeting: complete clearance of AKs, percentage of AKs cleared, severity of adverse events, patient perspective on effectiveness, patient-reported future treatment preference, and recurrence rate. It was recommended that treatment response be assessed at 2 to 4 months and recurrence at 6 to 12 months, with the AK rate of progression to cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma reported whenever long-term follow-up was possible. Conclusions and Relevance: Consensus was reached regarding a core outcome set for AK trials. Further research may help determine the specific outcome measures used to assess each of these outcomes.

Artificial intelligence and dermatology: opportunities, challenges, and future directions.

The application of artificial intelligence (AI) to medicine has considerable potential within dermatology, where the majority of diagnoses are based on visual pattern recognition. Opportunities for AI in dermatology include the potential to automate repetitive tasks; optimize time-consuming tasks; extend limited medical resources; improve interobserver reliability issues; and expand the diagnostic toolbox of dermatologists. To achieve the full potential of AI, however, developers must aim to create algorithms representing diverse patient populations; ensure algorithm output is ultimately interpretable; validate algorithm performance prospectively; preserve human-patient interaction when necessary; and demonstrate validity in the eyes of regulatory bodies.