The Global Hidradenitis Suppurativa Atlas (GHiSA) Methodology: Combining Global Proportions in a Pooled Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Data concerning the global burden of Hidradenitis Suppurativa (HS) are limited. Reported prevalence estimates vary between 0.0003% and 4.1%, and data from various geographical regions are still to be collected. Previously reported prevalence rates have been limited by the methodological approach and source of data. This has resulted in great heterogeneity as prevalence data from physician-diagnosed cases poorly match those of self-reported apparent HS disease. METHODS: The Global Hidradenitis Suppurativa Atlas (GHiSA) introduces an innovative approach to determine the global prevalence of HS. This approach involves using a previously validated questionnaire to screen apparently healthy adults accompanying a patient to a non-dermatological outpatient clinic visit in a hospital. The screening questionnaire (i.e., the index test) is combined with a subsequent physician-based in-person validation (i.e., the reference standard) of the participants who screen positive. Ten percent of the screen-negative participants are also clinically assessed to verify the diagnostic precision of the test. The local prevalence (pi) will be estimated from each country that submits the number of patients who are HS positive according to the index test and clinical examination (n), and the corresponding total number of observations (N). CONCLUSION: The GHiSA Global Prevalence studies are currently running simultaneously in 58 countries across six continents (Africa, Europe, Australia, North America, South America, and Asia). The goal of the combined global proportion is the generation of a single summary (i.e., proportional meta-analysis), which will be done after a logit transformation, and synthesized using a random-effects model. The novel standardization of the Global Prevalence studies conducted through GHiSA enables direct international comparisons, which were previously not possible due to substantial heterogeneity in past HS prevalence studies.

Protocol of a scoping review of outcome domains in dermatology.

INTRODUCTION: Core outcome sets (COSs) are agreed outcomes (domains (subdomains) and instruments) that should be measured as a minimum in clinical trials or practice in certain diseases or clinical fields. Worldwide, the number of COSs is increasing and there might be conceptual overlaps of domains (subdomains) and instruments within disciplines. The aim of this scoping review is to map and to classify all outcomes identified with COS projects relating to skin diseases. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a scoping review of outcomes of skin disease-related COS initiatives to identify all concepts and their definitions. We will search PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library. The search dates will be 1 January 2010 (the point at which Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) was established) to 1 January 2024. We will also review the COMET database and C3 website to identify parts of COSs (domains and/or instruments) that are being developed and published. This review will be supplemented by querying relevant stakeholders from COS organisations, dermatology organisations and patient organisations for additional COSs that were developed. The resulting long lists of outcomes will then be mapped into conceptually similar concepts. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was supported by departmental research funds from the Department of Dermatology at Northwestern University. An ethics committee review was waived since this protocol was done by staff researchers with no involvement of patient care. Conflicts of interests, if any, will be addressed by replacing participants with relevant conflicts or reassigning them. The results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals, social media posts and promotion by COS organisations.

Burden of Hidradenitis Suppurativa: A Systematic Literature Review of Patient Reported Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) has a profound negative impact on patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Here we summarize the evidence on HRQoL and Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) in patients with HS in real-world settings by conducting a systematic literature review (SLR) of observational studies. METHODS: Data sources included MEDLINE, Embase & PsycINFO between January 1, 2010 and August 29, 2021, and conference proceedings between 2019 and 2021. Identified abstracts were reviewed and screened independently by two reviewers. Eligibility criteria included patients with HS of any severity, sample size ≥ 100, reporting PROs including HRQoL measures. Included studies were critically appraised. RESULTS: Fifty-eight observational studies matched inclusion criteria. Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) was the most commonly utilized instrument: 57% of included studies reported mean baseline DLQI scores, ranging between 8.4 and 16.9, indicating a very large impact on the patients' HRQoL. Higher scores were reported with increasing disease severity and among female patients. Pain was assessed mostly by an 11-point (0-10) numeric rating scale (NRS) with a mean baseline score ranging from 3.6 to 7.7 indicating moderate to high pain levels. There was a negative impact of HS on patients' psychological well-being, based on PRO scores related to depression and anxiety. A high proportion of sexual dysfunction was reported, with a larger impact on women than men. Work productivity and leisure activity were consistently found to be impaired in patients with HS. CONCLUSIONS: All included studies reported a negative impact of HS on patients' lives. A diverse set of disease- and non-disease-specific PRO instruments were utilized highlighting the need for more consistent use of HS-specific validated PRO instruments to assess the impact of HS on the different aspects of patients' HRQoL to allow for data to be more meaningfully interpreted and compared in real-world settings. Patients with HS need better disease management approaches that address the observed low quality of life.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a skin disease, which mainly involves the hair follicles, and may greatly affect the health of those with the illness. HS often causes painful or itchy bumps or swelling of the skin, especially in the intimate areas. These occasionally drain and have an odor. When they heal, sometimes they leave dark spots or scars. People with HS can feel depressed, anxious, or embarrassed, among other things. In this study, we looked at how existing studies measured the impact of HS on the physical, mental, and social quality of people's lives. When searching the Internet, we found 58 publications on studies around this topic. Across all of the studies, HS had a large negative effect on patients' quality of life. We found that the groups of people which were impacted more by HS had worse cases of the disease. Patients with more severe HS felt higher levels of pain. Women were also affected more than men. Many studies showed that patients with HS often felt depressed and anxious. Three studies showed that HS greatly affected women's sexual health. Many patients said that HS made it hard to work and do things for fun. More and better treatments are needed since HS can have such a big impact on people's lives.

A systematic review of 454 randomized controlled trials using the Dermatology Life Quality Index: experience in 69 diseases and 43 countries.

BACKGROUND: Over 29 years of clinical application, the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) has remained the most used patient-reported outcome (PRO) in dermatology due to its robustness, simplicity and ease of use. OBJECTIVES: To generate further evidence of the DLQI's utility in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to cover all diseases and interventions. METHODS: The methodology followed PRISMA guidelines and included seven bibliographical databases, searching articles published from 1 January 1994 until 16 November 2021. Articles were reviewed independently by two assessors, and an adjudicator resolved any opinion differences. RESULTS: Of 3220 screened publications, 454 articles meeting the eligibility criteria for inclusion, describing research on 198 190 patients, were analysed. DLQI scores were primary endpoints in 24 (5.3%) of studies. Most studies were of psoriasis (54.1%), although 69 different diseases were studied. Most study drugs were systemic (85.1%), with biologics comprising 55.9% of all pharmacological interventions. Topical treatments comprised 17.0% of total pharmacological interventions. Nonpharmacological interventions, mainly laser therapy and ultraviolet radiation treatment, comprised 12.2% of the total number of interventions. The majority of studies (63.7%) were multicentric, with trials conducted in at least 42 different countries; 40.2% were conducted in multiple countries. The minimal clinically importance difference (MCID) was reported in the analysis of 15.0% of studies, but only 1.3% considered full score meaning banding of the DLQI. Forty-seven (10.4%) of the studies investigated statistical correlation of the DLQI with clinical severity assessment or other PRO/quality of life tools; and 61-86% of studies had within-group scores differences greater than the MCID in 'active treatment arms'. The Jadad risk-of-bias scale showed that bias was generally low, as 91.8% of the studies had Jadad scores of ≥ 3; only 0.4% of studies showed a high risk of bias from randomization. Thirteen per cent had a high risk of bias from blinding and 10.1% had a high risk of bias from unknown outcomes of all participants in the studies. In 18.5% of the studies the authors declared that they followed an intention-to-treat protocol; imputation for missing DLQI data was used in 34.4% of studies. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review provides a wealth of evidence of the use of the DLQI in clinical trials to inform researchers' and -clinicians' decisions for its further use. Recommendations are also made for improving the reporting of data from future RCTs using the DLQI.

Global consensus process to establish a core dataset for hidradenitis suppurativa registries.

BACKGROUND: Several registries for hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) already exist in Europe and the USA. There is currently no global consensus on a core dataset (CDS) for these registries. Creating a global HS registry is challenging, owing to logistical and regulatory constraints, which could limit opportunities for global collaboration as a result of differences in the dataset collected. The solution is to encourage all HS registries to collect the same CDS of information, allowing registries to collaborate. OBJECTIVES: To establish a core set of items to be collected by all HS registries globally. The core set will cover demographic details, comorbidities, clinical examination findings, patient-reported outcome measures and treatments. METHODS: Beginning in September 2022, 20 participants - including both clinicians with expertise in HS and patient advocates - from eight countries across three continents participated in a Delphi process consisting of four rounds of voting, with all participants completing each round. A list of potential items for inclusion in the core set was generated from the relevant published literature, including systematic reviews of comorbidities in HS, clinical and examination findings, and epidemiology. For disease severity and progression items, the Hidradenitis SuppuraTiva Core outcome set International Collaboration (HiSTORIC) core set and other relevant instruments were considered for inclusion. This resulted in 47 initial items. Participants were invited to suggest additional items to include during the first round. Anonymous feedback was provided to inform each subsequent round of voting to encourage consensus. RESULTS: The eDelphi process established a CDS of 48 items recommended for inclusion in all HS registries globally. CONCLUSIONS: The routine adoption of this CDS in current and future HS registries should allow registries in different parts of the world to collaborate, enabling research requiring large numbers of participants.

Treatment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa Evaluation Study (THESEUS): a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic, painful disease affecting flexures and other skin regions, producing nodules, abscesses and skin tunnels. Laser treatment targeting hair follicles and deroofing of skin tunnels are standard HS interventions in some countries but are rarely offered in the UK. OBJECTIVES: To describe current UK HS management pathways and influencing factors to inform the design of future randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: THESEUS was a nonrandomized 12-month prospective cohort study set in 10 UK hospitals offering five interventions: oral doxycycline 200 mg daily; oral clindamycin and rifampicin both 300 mg twice daily for 10 weeks, extended for longer in some cases; laser treatment targeting hair follicles; deroofing; and conventional surgery. The primary outcome was the combination of clinician-assessed eligibility and participant hypothetical willingness to receive each intervention. The secondary outcomes were the proportion of participants selecting each intervention as their final treatment option; the proportion who switch treatments; treatment fidelity; and attrition rates. THESEUS was prospectively registered on the ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN69985145. RESULTS: The recruitment target of 150 participants was met after 18 months, in July 2021, with two pauses due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Baseline demographics reflected the HS secondary care population: average age 36 years, 81% female, 20% non-White, 64% current or ex-smokers, 86% body mass index ≥ 25, 68% with moderate disease, 19% with severe disease and 13% with mild disease. Laser was the intervention with the highest proportion (69%) of participants eligible and willing to receive treatment, then deroofing (58%), conventional surgery (54%), clindamycin and rifampicin (44%), and doxycycline (37%). Laser was ranked first choice by the greatest proportion of participants (41%). Attrition rates were 11% and 17% after 3 and 6 months, respectively. Concordance with doxycycline was 52% after 3 months due to lack of efficacy, participant choice and adverse effects. Delays with procedural interventions were common, with only 43% and 26% of participants starting laser and deroofing, respectively, after 3 months. Uptake of conventional surgery was too small to characterize the intervention. Switching treatment was uncommon and there were no serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: THESEUS has established laser treatment and deroofing for HS in the UK and demonstrated their popularity with patients and clinicians for future RCTs.

Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes in Hidradenitis Suppurativa: Content Validity and Usability of the Electronic Hidradenitis Suppurativa Symptom Daily Diary, Hidradenitis Suppurativa Symptom Questionnaire, and Hidradenitis Suppurativa Quality of Life Questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), a chronic skin condition that causes pain and physical dysfunction, can impact significantly on quality of life. Disease-specific tools have been designed to assess the impact of HS on patients, including the HS Symptom Daily Diary (HSSDD), the HS Symptom Questionnaire (HSSQ), and the HS Quality of Life (HiSQOL©) questionnaire, which have been developed into electronic instruments (eHSSDD, eHSSQ, and eHiSQOL©). OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to establish the content validity of the electronic version of the HSSDD and HSSQ, and the acceptability and usability of the HSSDD, HSSQ, and HiSQOL©, using concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews. METHODS: This was a non-interventional qualitative video interview study involving participants aged ≥18 years with moderate to severe HS recruited from a single clinical site in the USA. Interviews gathered feedback on participants' symptom experience, followed by training and completion of the eHSSDD, eHSSQ, and eHiSQOL© questionnaires on electronic handheld devices. Participants were then interviewed on the content of the eHSSDD and eHSSQ and the acceptability and usability of all three instruments. Interviews were transcribed and qualitatively analysed. RESULTS: Twenty participants with moderate to severe HS (median age: 41.5 [range: 20.0-64.0]; n = 16/20 female) were included. All participants found the eHSSDD, eHSSQ, and eHiSQOL© instructions clear and described the instruments as "easy", "simple" and "self-explanatory". Overall understanding of individual items within the eHSSDD and eHSSQ was high; however, 6/20 participants had difficulty in understanding the average skin pain item in the eHSSDD. All participants were able to accurately recall their symptoms within the recall periods of the eHSSDD and eHSSQ, although 4/20 participants found the 24-h recall period of the eHSSDD limiting. Completion time was quick across all instruments, and usability was high, with the majority of participants reporting no difficulty in completing questionnaires on electronic devices. CONCLUSION: The concepts covered in the eHSSDD and eHSSQ are relevant and important to patients, supporting their content validity. The findings also provide evidence of acceptability and usability of the eHSSDD, eHSSQ, and eHiSQOL©. A limitation was that all participants were recruited from a single site, which may have introduced selection bias and thus limited the generalisability of results.

Treatment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa Evaluation Study: the THESEUS prospective cohort study.

Background: Hidradenitis suppurativa is a chronic inflammatory skin disease characterised by recurrent inflammatory lesions and skin tunnels in flexural sites such as the axilla. Deroofing of skin tunnels and laser treatment are standard hidradenitis suppurativa interventions in some countries but not yet introduced in the United Kingdom. Objective: To understand current hidradenitis suppurativa management pathways and what influences treatment choices to inform the design of future randomised controlled trials. Design: Prospective 12-month observational cohort study, including five treatment options, with nested qualitative interviews and an end-of-study consensus workshop. Setting: Ten United Kingdom hospitals with recruitment led by dermatology and plastic surgery departments. Participants: Adults with active hidradenitis suppurativa of any severity not adequately controlled by current treatment. Interventions: Oral doxycycline 200 mg once daily; oral clindamycin and rifampicin, both 300 mg twice daily for 10 weeks initially; laser treatment targeting the hair follicle (neodymium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet or alexandrite); deroofing; and conventional surgery. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome was the proportion of participants who are eligible, and hypothetically willing, to use the different treatment options. Secondary outcomes included proportion of participants choosing each of the study interventions, with reasons for their choices; proportion of participants who switched treatments; treatment fidelity; loss to follow-up rates over 12 months; and efficacy outcome estimates to inform outcome measure instrument responsiveness. Results: Between February 2020 and July 2021, 151 participants were recruited, with two pauses due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Follow-up rates were 89% and 83% after 3 and 6 months, decreasing to 70% and 44% at 9 and 12 months, respectively, because pandemic recruitment delays prevented all participants reaching their final review. Baseline demographics included an average age of 36 years, 81% female, 20% black, Asian or Caribbean, 64% current or ex-smokers and 86% with a raised body mass index. Some 69% had moderate disease, 19% severe disease and 13% mild disease. Regarding the study's primary outcome, laser treatment was the intervention with the highest proportion (69%) of participants who were eligible and hypothetically willing to receive treatment, followed by deroofing (58%), conventional surgery (54%), the combination of oral clindamycin and rifampicin (44%) and doxycycline (37%). Considering participant willingness in isolation, laser was ranked first choice by the greatest proportion (41%) of participants. The cohort study and qualitative study demonstrated that participant willingness to receive treatment was strongly influenced by their clinician. Fidelity to oral doxycycline was only 52% after 3 months due to lack of effectiveness, participant preference and adverse effects. Delays receiving procedural interventions were common, with only 43% and 26% of participants commencing laser therapy and deroofing, respectively, after 3 months. Treatment switching was uncommon and there were no serious adverse events. Daily pain score text messages were initiated in 110 participants. Daily responses reduced over time with greatest concordance during the first 14 days. Limitations: It was not possible to characterise conventional surgery due to a low number of participants. Conclusion: The Treatment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa Evaluation Study established deroofing and laser treatment for hidradenitis suppurativa in the United Kingdom and developed a network of 10 sites for subsequent hidradenitis suppurativa randomised controlled trials. Future work: The consensus workshop prioritised laser treatment and deroofing as interventions for future randomised controlled trials, in some cases combined with drug treatment. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN69985145. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 12/35/64) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 30. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

The Treatment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa Evaluation Study introduced deroofing of skin tunnels and laser treatment for hidradenitis suppurativa and found that these are preferred interventions for future trials compared with oral antibiotics or conventional surgery.

Outcome Measures for the Evaluation of Treatment Response in Hidradenitis Suppurativa for Clinical Practice: A HiSTORIC Consensus Statement.

Importance: Although several clinician- and patient-reported outcome measures have been developed for trials in hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), there is currently no consensus on which measures are best suited for use in clinical practice. Identifying validated and feasible measures applicable to the practice setting has the potential to optimize treatment strategies and generate generalizable evidence that may inform treatment guidelines. Objective: To establish consensus on a core set of clinician- and patient-reported outcome measures recommended for use in clinical practice and to establish the appropriate interval within which these measures should be applied. Evidence Review: Clinician- and patient-reported HS measures and studies describing their psychometric properties were identified through literature reviews. Identified measures comprised an item reduction survey and subsequent electronic Delphi (e-Delphi) consensus rounds. In each consensus round, a summary of outcome measure components and scoring methods was provided to participants. Experts were provided with feasibility characteristics of clinician measures to aid selection. Consensus was achieved if at least 67% of respondents agreed with use of a measure in clinical practice. Findings: Among HS experts, response rates for item reduction, e-Delphi round 1, and e-Delphi round 2 surveys were 76.4% (42 of 55), 90.5% (38 of 42), and 92.9% (39 of 42), respectively; among patient research partners (PRPs), response rates were 70.8% (17 of 24), 100% (17 of 17), and 82.4% (14 of 17), respectively. The majority of experts across rounds were practicing dermatologists with 18 to 19 years of clinical experience. In the final e-Delphi round, most PRPs were female (12 [85.7%] vs 2 males [11.8%]) and aged 30 to 49 years. In the final e-Delphi round, HS experts and PRPs agreed with the use of the HS Investigator Global Assessment (28 [71.8%]) and HS Quality of Life score (13 [92.9%]), respectively. The most expert-preferred assessment interval in which to apply these measures was 3 months (27 [69.2%]). Conclusions and Relevance: An international group of HS experts and PRPs achieved consensus on a core set of HS measures suitable for use in clinical practice. Consistent use of these measures may lead to more accurate assessments of HS disease activity and life outcomes, facilitating shared treatment decision-making in the practice setting.