Early postoperative water exposure does not increase complications in cutaneous surgeries: A randomized, investigator-blinded, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients are often advised to keep the initial postoperative dressings dry and undisturbed for 24 to 72 hours. However, these requirements may result in significant disruption of patients' activities of daily living, such as bathing, leisure, and exercise. OBJECTIVE: Compare standard management of keeping wounds dry and covered (48 hours) with early (6 hours) postoperative water exposure. METHODS: Investigator-blinded, randomized (1:1), controlled trial evaluating rate of infection and additional outcomes of interest. RESULTS: Overall, 437 patients were randomized to either the early (6-hour) water exposure (n = 218) intervention group or the standard cohort (n = 219). The incidence of culture-proven infection in the intervention group (1.8%) was similar to the standard group (1.4%) (P > .99). There was also no difference in rates of bleeding or bruising. Scar assessment using the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale revealed similar scar outcomes. LIMITATIONS: Single site, academic center. CONCLUSION: Surgical wounds can be allowed to get wet in the immediate postoperative period with no increased incidence of infection or other complications and with similar cosmesis.

Inpatient Management of Hidradenitis Suppurativa: A Delphi Consensus Study.

Inpatient hospitalization of individuals with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) has increased. Inpatient services may not be familiar enough with this disease to understand how to manage severe HS and/or HS flares. It would be beneficial to the inpatient medical community to establish consensus recommendations on holistic inpatient care of patients with HS. A survey study was developed and distributed by Wake Forest University School of Medicine (Winston-Salem, North Carolina). A total of 26 dermatologists participated in the Delphi process, and the process was conducted in 2 rounds. Participants voted on proposal statements using a 9-point scale (1=very inappropriate; 9=very appropriate). Statements were developed using current published guidelines for management of HS and supportive care guidelines for other severe inpatient dermatologic diseases. A total of 50 statements were reviewed and voted on between the 2 rounds. Consensus was determined using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. Twenty-six dermatologists completed the first-round survey, and 24 completed the second-round survey. The 40 consensus recommendations generated through these surveys can serve as a resource for providers caring for inpatients with HS.

Efficacy and safety of bimekizumab in patients with moderate-to-severe hidradenitis suppurativa (BE HEARD I and BE HEARD II): two 48-week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre phase 3 trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients with hidradenitis suppurativa have substantial unmet clinical needs and scarce therapeutic options. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of bimekizumab, a monoclonal IgG1 antibody that selectively inhibits interleukin (IL)-17F and IL-17A, in patients with moderate-to-severe hidradenitis suppurativa. METHODS: BE HEARD I and II were two identically designed, 48-week randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre phase 3 trials. Patients aged 18 years or older with moderate-to-severe hidradenitis suppurativa were randomly assigned 2:2:2:1 using interactive response technology (stratified by worst Hurley Stage at baseline and baseline systemic antibiotic use) to receive subcutaneous bimekizumab 320 mg every 2 weeks; bimekizumab 320 mg every 2 weeks to week 16, then every 4 weeks to week 48; bimekizumab 320 mg every 4 weeks to week 48; or placebo to week 16, then bimekizumab 320 mg every 2 weeks. The primary outcome was an hidradenitis suppurativa clinical response of at least 50%, defined as a reduction in total abscess and inflammatory nodule count of at least 50% from baseline with no increase from baseline in abscess or draining tunnel count (HiSCR50) at week 16. Efficacy analyses included all randomly assigned study patients (intention-to-treat population). Safety analyses included all patients who received at least one full or partial dose of study treatment in the safety set, and of bimekizumab in the active-medication set. These trials are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04242446 and NCT04242498, and both are completed. FINDINGS: Patients for BE HEARD I were recruited from Feb 19, 2020, to Oct 27, 2021, and 505 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned. Patients for BE HEARD II were recruited from March 2, 2020, to July 28, 2021, and 509 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned. The primary outcome at week 16 was met in the group who received bimekizumab every 2 weeks using modified non-responder imputation; higher responder rates were observed with bimekizumab versus placebo in both trials: 138 (48%) of 289 patients versus 21 (29%) of 72 patients in BE HEARD I (odds ratio [OR] 2·23 [97·5% CI 1·16-4·31]; p=0·0060) and 151 (52%) of 291 patients versus 24 (32%) of 74 patients in BE HEARD II (2·29 [1·22-4·29]; p=0·0032). In BE HEARD II, HiSCR50 was also met in the group who were administered bimekizumab every 4 weeks (77 [54%] of 144 vs 24 [32%] of 74 with placebo; 2·42 [1·22-4·80]; p=0·0038). Responses were maintained or increased to week 48. Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 40 (8%) patients in BE HEARD I and in 24 (5%) patients in BE HEARD II treated with bimekizumab over 48 weeks. The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse events to week 48 were hidradenitis in both trials, in addition to coronavirus infection and diarrhoea in BE HEARD I, and oral candidiasis and headache in BE HEARD II. One death was reported across the two trials, and was due to congestive heart failure in a patient with substantial cardiovascular history treated with bimekizumab every 2 weeks in BE HEARD I (considered unrelated to bimekizumab treatment by the investigator). No new safety signals were observed. INTERPRETATION: Bimekizumab was well tolerated by patients with hidradenitis suppurativa and produced rapid and deep clinically meaningful responses that were maintained up to 48 weeks. Data from these two trials support the use of bimekizumab for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe hidradenitis suppurativa. FUNDING: UCB Pharma.

Discrepancies in hidradenitis suppurativa lesion characterization by providers and patients.

BACKGROUND: The hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) clinical response (HiSCR) has come under scrutiny as several HS clinical trials failed to meet primary endpoints with high placebo responses. This may be due to limitations of the tool and raters' ability to accurately characterize and count lesions, rather than lack of efficacy of the studied drug. Due to HS lesion complexity and potential differences in rater training, it was hypothesized that there would be discrepancies in how providers characterize and count lesions for HS clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how HS providers and patients name and count HS lesions and to identify discrepancies among providers to initiate the development of consensus-driven guidance for HS rater training. METHODS: An online survey was distributed to the members of HIdradenitis SuppuraTiva cORe outcomes set International Collaboration (HISTORIC). Respondents were asked to classify lesion images composed of multiple and different morphology types and answer questions regarding inclusion of associated dermatological conditions. RESULTS: Forty-seven HISTORIC members responded (29 providers; 18 patients). There was variability in how respondents classified HS lesions. Of 12 questions containing images, four had ≥50% of respondents choosing the same answer. With an image of a lesion composed of different morphologies, 45% of providers counted it as a single lesion and 45% counted it as multiple distinct lesions. With an image of multiple interconnected draining tunnels, 7% of providers classified it as a single draining tunnel while 79% categorized it as multiple draining tunnels with the number estimated by visual inspection. There was also variability in deciding whether lesions occurring in associated conditions should be considered separately or included in HS lesion counts. Patient responses were also variable. CONCLUSIONS: The result of the current study reaffirms the gap in how providers characterize and count HS lesions for clinical trials and the need to develop consensus-driven rater training related to HS outcome measures.