Best Practice for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Infliximab: Position Statement from the International Association of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Clinical Toxicology.

BACKGROUND: Infliximab, an anti-tumor necrosis factor monoclonal antibody, has revolutionized the pharmacological management of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs). This position statement critically reviews and examines existing data on therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of infliximab in patients with IMIDs. It provides a practical guide on implementing TDM in current clinical practices and outlines priority areas for future research. METHODS: The endorsing TDM of Biologics and Pharmacometrics Committees of the International Association of TDM and Clinical Toxicology collaborated to create this position statement. RESULTS: Accumulating data support the evidence for TDM of infliximab in the treatment of inflammatory bowel diseases, with limited investigation in other IMIDs. A universal approach to TDM may not fully realize the benefits of improving therapeutic outcomes. Patients at risk for increased infliximab clearance, particularly with a proactive strategy, stand to gain the most from TDM. Personalized exposure targets based on therapeutic goals, patient phenotype, and infliximab administration route are recommended. Rapid assays and home sampling strategies offer flexibility for point-of-care TDM. Ongoing studies on model-informed precision dosing in inflammatory bowel disease will help assess the additional value of precision dosing software tools. Patient education and empowerment, and electronic health record-integrated TDM solutions will facilitate routine TDM implementation. Although optimization of therapeutic effectiveness is a primary focus, the cost-reducing potential of TDM also merits consideration. CONCLUSIONS: Successful implementation of TDM for infliximab necessitates interdisciplinary collaboration among clinicians, hospital pharmacists, and (quantitative) clinical pharmacologists to ensure an efficient research trajectory.

Beyond visual inspection: The value of infrared thermography in skin diseases, a scoping review.

Although warmth is a key sign of inflammatory skin lesions, an objective assessment and follow-up of the temperature changes are rarely done in dermatology. The recent availability of accurate, sensitive and cost-effective thermography devices has made the implementation of thermography in clinical settings feasible. The aim of this scoping review is to summarize the evidence around the value and pitfalls of infrared thermography (IRT) when used in the dermatology clinic. A systematic literature search was done for original articles using IRT in skin disorders. The results concerning the potential of IRT for diagnosis, severity staging and monitoring of skin diseases were collected. The data on the sensitivity and specificity of IRT were extracted. Numerous studies have investigated IRT in various skin diseases, revealing its significant value in wound management, skin infections (e.g. cellulitis), vascular abnormalities and deep skin inflammation (e.g. hidradenitis suppurativa). For other dermatological applications such as the interpretation of intradermal and patch allergy testing, hyper-/anhidrosis, erythromelalgia, cold urticaria and lymph node metastases more complex calculations, provocation tests or active cooling procedures are required. Dermatologists should be aware of a learning curve of IRT and recognize factors contributing to false positive and false negative results. Nonetheless, enough evidence is available to recommend IRT as a supplement to the clinical evaluation for the diagnosis, severity and follow-up of several skin diseases.

Deucravacitinib, a selective, allosteric tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, in scalp psoriasis: A subset analysis of two phase 3 randomized trials in plaque psoriasis.

BACKGROUND: Scalp involvement in plaque psoriasis is challenging to treat. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of deucravacitinib (DEUC) in scalp psoriasis. METHODS: POETYK PSO-1 and PSO-2 were global phase 3, 52-week, double-blinded trials in adults with moderate to severe psoriasis. Patients were randomized 1:2:1 to oral placebo, DEUC 6 mg once daily, or apremilast 30 mg twice daily. This pooled secondary analysis evaluated scalp-specific Physician Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 (0/1), ≥90% improvement from baseline in Psoriasis Scalp Severity Index, and change from baseline in Psoriasis Scalp Severity Index. Adverse events were evaluated through week 16. RESULTS: Overall, 1084 patients with moderate to severe scalp psoriasis at baseline were included. At week 16, response rates were greater with DEUC versus placebo or apremilast for scalp-specific Physician Global Assessment 0/1 (64.0% vs 17.3% vs 37.7%; P < .0001), ≥90% improvement from baseline in Psoriasis Scalp Severity Index (50.6% vs 10.5% vs 26.1%; P < .0001), and change from baseline in Psoriasis Scalp Severity Index. Responses were maintained through 52 weeks with continuous DEUC. Safety was consistent with the entire study population. LIMITATIONS: Lack of data in milder scalp psoriasis. CONCLUSION: DEUC was significantly more efficacious than placebo or apremilast in improving moderate to severe scalp psoriasis and was well tolerated.

Quantifying the Effect of Methotrexate on Adalimumab Response in Psoriasis by Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic Modeling.

Previously, we showed that the combination of methotrexate and adalimumab treatment leads to less antidrug antibody development. In this study, we quantify the pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD) of adalimumab and evaluate the influence of methotrexate cotreatment. A population PK-PD model was developed using prospective data from 59 patients with psoriasis (baseline PASI = 12.6) receiving adalimumab over 49 weeks. Typical PK and PD parameters and their corresponding interpatient variability were estimated. We performed a covariate analysis to assess whether interpatient variability could be explained by addition of methotrexate and other covariates. In total, 330 PASIs, 252 adalimumab serum concentrations, and 247 antidrug antibody titers were available. Presence of antidrug antibodies (adalimumab group = 46.7%, adalimumab + methotrexate group = 38.7%; P = .031) was correlated with increased adalimumab apparent clearance (P < .001). In the PD model, the use of concomitant methotrexate was borderline to significantly correlated with a decreased half-maximal inhibitory concentration (adalimumab concentration for which clinical response score is reduced by half; P < .10). On the basis of our PK-PD model, concomitant use of methotrexate indirectly increases adalimumab concentration, partially through less antidrug antibodies formation, which may result in better efficacy.

Value in psoriasis (IRIS) trial: implementing value-based healthcare in psoriasis management - a 1-year prospective clinical study to evaluate feasibility and value creation.

INTRODUCTION: Currently, the healthcare sector is under tremendous financial pressure, and many acknowledge that a dramatic shift is required as the current system is not sustainable. Furthermore, the quality of care that is delivered varies strongly. Several solutions have been proposed of which the conceptual framework known as value-based healthcare (VBHC) is further explored in this study for psoriasis. Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory skin disease, which is associated with a high disease burden and high treatment costs. The objective of this study is to investigate the feasibility of using the VBHC framework for the management of psoriasis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a prospective clinical study in which new patients attending the psoriasis clinic (PsoPlus) of the Ghent University Hospital will be followed up during a period of 1 year. The main outcome is to determine the value created for psoriasis patients. The created value will be considered as a reflection of the evolution of the value score (ie, the weighted outputs (outcomes) divided by weighted inputs (costs)) obtained using data envelopment analysis. Secondary outcomes are related to comorbidity control, outcome evolution and treatment costs. In addition, a bundled payment scheme will be determined as well as potential improvements in the treatment process. A total of 350 patients will be included in this trial and the study initiation is foreseen on 1 March 2023. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the Ghent University Hospital. The findings of this study will be disseminated by various means: (1) publication in one or more peer-reviewed dermatology and/or management journals, (2) (inter)national congresses, (3) via the psoriasis patient community and (4) through the research team's social media channels. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05480917.

Adalimumab combined with methotrexate versus adalimumab monotherapy in psoriasis: Three-year follow-up data of a single-blind randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Anti-drug antibodies (ADA) are formed in patients treated with adalimumab (ADL). This might increase clearance of ADL, potentially causing a (secondary) non-response. Combination therapy of ADL and methotrexate (MTX) reduces ADA levels and has a clinical benefit in rheumatologic diseases. In psoriasis however, the long-term effectiveness and safety have not been studied. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the three-year follow-up data of ADL combined with MTX compared to ADL monotherapy in ADL-naive patients with moderate to severe plaque type psoriasis. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre RCT in the Netherlands and Belgium. Randomization was performed by a centralized online randomization service. Patients were seen every 12 weeks until week 145. Outcome assessors were blinded. We collected data on drug survival, effectiveness, safety, pharmacokinetics and immunogenicity of patients that started ADL combined with MTX compared to ADL monotherapy. We present descriptive analysis and patients were analysed according to the group initially randomized to. Patients becoming non-adherent to the biologic were excluded from analyses. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients were included and 37 patients (ADL group n = 17, ADL + MTX group n = 20) continued in the follow-up study after 1 year. After 109 weeks and 145 weeks, there was a trend towards longer drug survival in the ADL + MTX group compared to the ADL group (week 109: 54.8% vs. 41.4%; p = 0.326, week 145: 51.6% vs. 41.4%; p = 0.464). At week 145, 7/13 patients were treated with MTX. In the ADL group, 4/12 patients that completed the study developed ADA, and 3/13 in the ADL + MTX group. CONCLUSIONS: In this small study, there was no significant difference in ADL overall drug survival when it was initially combined with MTX, compared to ADL alone. Discontinuation due to adverse events was common in the combination group. To secure accessible healthcare, combination treatment of ADL and MTX can be considered in individual patients.

SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID19 vaccination across eight immune-mediated inflammatory disorders: A prospective, real-life Belgian cohort study - the BELCOMID study.

Background: The risks and impact of COVID19 disease and vaccination in patients with Immune Mediated Inflammatory Diseases (IMID) remain incompletely understood. IMID patients and particularly patients receiving immunosuppressive treatment were excluded from the original, registrational phase-3 COVID19 vaccination efficacy and safety trials. Real-world observational data can help to fill this gap in knowledge. The BELCOMID study aims to explore the interaction between IMIDs, immune-modulating treatment modalities and SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination in a real-life patient cohort. Methods: A multidisciplinary, prospective, observational cohort study was set up. Consecutive patients with IMIDs of the gut, joints and skin followed at two high-volume referral centers were invited. Both patients under conventional treatment or targeted immune modulating therapies were included. Patient data and serological samples were collected at 3 predefined periods (before COVID19 vaccination, before booster vaccination, after booster vaccination). Primary endpoints were positive PCR-test and SARS-CoV-2 serology reflecting previous SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination. Associations with IMID treatment modality and IMID disease activity were assessed. Results of the first two inclusion periods (before booster vaccination) are reported. Results: At the first inclusion period data was assessed of 2165 IMID-patients before COVID19 vaccination. At the second inclusion period, data of 2065 patients was collected of whom 1547 had received complete baseline COVID19 vaccination and 222 were partially vaccinated. SARS-CoV-2 infection rate remained low in both groups. No significant increase in IMID flare-up rate was noted in patients with prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Multiple logistic regression analyses did not show a significant influence of IMID-treatment modality or IMID activity on SARS-CoV-2 infection risk (based on PCR positivity or N-serology). Patients treated with conventional immunomodulators, systemic steroids, and patients on advanced therapies such as biologics or small molecules, had reduced S-antibody seroconversion. S-antibody response was also lower in patients without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection and in active smokers. A subset of patients (4.1%) had no S- nor N-antibody seroconversion following complete baseline vaccination. Conclusion: The BELCOMID study results confirm the benign course of COVID19 infection and vaccination in a large real-life IMID-population. However, our results underscore the need for repeated vaccination and smoking cessation in patients with IMIDs treated with immune-modulating therapies or systemic steroids during the pandemic.

Use of Systemic Therapies for Treatment of Psoriasis in Patients with a History of Treated Solid Tumours: Inference-Based Guidance from a Multidisciplinary Expert Panel.

BACKGROUND: Patients with treated solid tumours (TSTs) are a highly heterogeneous population at an increased risk for malignancy compared with the general population. When treating psoriasis in patients with a history of TSTs, clinicians are concerned about the immunosuppressive nature of psoriasis therapies, the possibility of augmenting cancer recurrence/progression, and infectious complications. No direct, high-level evidence exists to address these concerns. OBJECTIVES: We aim to provide a structured framework supporting healthcare professional and patient discussions on the risks and benefits of systemic psoriasis therapy in patients with previously TSTs. Our goal was to address the clinically important question, "In patients with TSTs, does therapy with systemic agents used for psoriasis increase the risk of malignancy or malignancy recurrence?" METHODS: We implemented an inference-based approach relying on indirect evidence when direct clinical trial and real-world data were absent. We reviewed indirect evidence supporting inferences on the status of immune function in patients with TSTs. Recommendations on systemic psoriasis therapies in patients with TSTs were derived using an inferential heuristic. RESULTS: We identified five indirect indicators of iatrogenic immunosuppression informed by largely independent bodies of evidence: (1) overall survival, (2) rate of malignancies with psoriasis and systemic psoriasis therapies, (3) rate of infections with psoriasis and systemic psoriasis therapies, (4) common disease biochemical pathways for solid tumours and systemic psoriasis therapies, and (5) solid organ transplant outcomes. On the basis of review of the totality of this data, we provided inference-based conclusions and ascribed level of support for each statement. CONCLUSIONS: Prior to considering new therapies for psoriasis, an understanding of cancer prognosis should be addressed. Patients with TSTs and a good cancer prognosis will have similar outcomes to non-TST patients when treated with systemic psoriasis therapies. For patients with TSTs and a poor cancer prognosis, the quality-of-life benefits of treating psoriasis may outweigh the theoretical risks.

Patients with previously treated cancer have a higher chance of cancer recurrence compared with the general population. With cancer incidence rising worldwide, doctors across medical specialities will need to treat other medical conditions, including inflammatory diseases such as psoriasis, in these patients. Effective systemic therapies for psoriasis reduce immune cell activity. Accordingly, there are concerns that treatments for psoriasis could worsen cancer recurrence/progression and infectious complications. There is not enough quality evidence to make broad recommendations for treating other inflammatory conditions in patients with a history of cancer. To guide patient and doctor discussions, we asked: what are effective and safe treatments when patients with treated solid tumours need systemic therapy (pills or injections) for their psoriasis? We focused on patients with solid tumours and excluded blood and skin cancers. Our panel of experts, including 12 dermatologists and 3 medical oncologists, reviewed direct and indirect evidence to answer this question. Considering the totality of evidence reviewed, the expert panel drafted and rated their level of support for opinion statements on important considerations in treating patients with psoriasis who have a history of solid tumours. By making inferences on systemic psoriasis therapies in this heterogeneous population, we take the onus off individual physicians to review the indirect data. This process may help answer questions in other disease populations where direct evidence is scarce or absent. To support treatment decisions, doctors should have a guided conversation with the patient and their family on a case-by-case basis about the risks and benefits of treatment.

Patient-reported well-being in value-based care using tildrakizumab in a real-world setting: protocol of a multinational, phase IV, 1-cohort prospective observational study (the POSITIVE study).

INTRODUCTION: Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory skin disease that negatively impacts the quality of life of patients and their families. However, the most commonly used decision-making tools in psoriasis, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI), Physician Global Assessment (PGA) and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), do not fully capture the impact of psoriasis on patients' lives. In contrast, the well-established 5-item WHO Well-being Index (WHO-5) assesses the subjective psychological well-being of patients. Moreover, while drug innovations became available for psoriasis, data on the impact of these therapies on patients' lives and their closest environment (family, physicians) are limited. This study will assess the effect of tildrakizumab, an interleukin-23p19 inhibitor, on the overall well-being of patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Moreover, the long-term benefit of tildrakizumab on physicians' satisfaction and partners' lives of patients with psoriasis will be evaluated. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This non-interventional, prospective, observational, real-world evidence study will involve multiple sites in Europe and approximately 500 adults with moderate-to-severe psoriasis treated with tildrakizumab. Each patient will be followed for 24 months. The primary endpoint is well-being measured by the WHO-5 questionnaire. Key secondary endpoints include Physician's Satisfaction and partner's quality of life (FamilyPso). Other endpoints will evaluate skin-generic quality of life (DLQI-R), Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM-9), Treatment-related Patient Benefit Index 'Standard', 10 items (PBI-S-10) and work productivity and activity impairment due to psoriasis (WPAI:PSO). Statistical analyses will be based on observed cases. Multiple imputations will be performed as a sensitivity analysis, and adverse events will be reported. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study will be conducted according to the protocol, which received ethics committee approval and applicable regulatory requirements of each participating country. The results will be disseminated through scientific publications and congress presentations. TRAIL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04823247 (Pre-results).

Nonadherence to systemic immune-modifying therapy in people with psoriasis during the COVID-19 pandemic: findings from a global cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Nonadherence to immune-modifying therapy is a complex behaviour which, before the COVID-19 pandemic, was shown to be associated with mental health disorders in people with immune-mediated diseases. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a rise in the global prevalence of anxiety and depression, and limited data exist on the association between mental health and nonadherence to immune-modifying therapy during the pandemic. OBJECTIVES: To assess the extent of and reasons underlying nonadherence to systemic immune-modifying therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic in individuals with psoriasis, and the association between mental health and nonadherence. METHODS: Online self-report surveys (PsoProtectMe), including validated screens for anxiety and depression, were completed globally during the first year of the pandemic. We assessed the association between anxiety or depression and nonadherence to systemic immune-modifying therapy using binomial logistic regression, adjusting for potential cofounders (age, sex, ethnicity, comorbidity) and country of residence. RESULTS: Of 3980 participants from 77 countries, 1611 (40.5%) were prescribed a systemic immune-modifying therapy. Of these, 408 (25.3%) reported nonadherence during the pandemic, most commonly due to concerns about their immunity. In the unadjusted model, a positive anxiety screen was associated with nonadherence to systemic immune-modifying therapy [odds ratio (OR) 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.76]. Specifically, anxiety was associated with nonadherence to targeted therapy (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.01-1.96) but not standard systemic therapy (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.81-1.67). In the adjusted model, although the directions of the effects remained, anxiety was not significantly associated with nonadherence to overall systemic (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.92-1.56) or targeted (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.94-1.89) immune-modifying therapy. A positive depression screen was not strongly associated with nonadherence to systemic immune-modifying therapy in the unadjusted (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.94-1.57) or adjusted models (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.87-1.49). CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate substantial nonadherence to immune-modifying therapy in people with psoriasis during the pandemic, with attenuation of the association with mental health after adjusting for confounders. Future research in larger populations should further explore pandemic-specific drivers of treatment nonadherence. Clear communication of the reassuring findings from population-based research regarding immune-modifying therapy-associated adverse COVID-19 risks to people with psoriasis is essential, to optimize adherence and disease outcomes.

A plain language summary of what freedom from disease means to people with psoriasis according to doctors, nurses, and people with psoriasis.

What is this summary about? This summary presents findings from recent research involving people with psoriasis, based on an article originally published in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. Psoriasis is a condition that primarily affects the skin. However, it can also influence people's mental health, social activities, work, and relationships too. Current assessment tools used by doctors and nurses do not cover the complete experience of people with psoriasis, which often include other medical conditions and can leave these individuals feeling that treatment has not been successful. Researchers conducted a study in which people with psoriasis, doctors, and nurses were asked in virtual meetings and via questionnaires what freedom from disease in psoriasis means to them. What were the results? In addition to skin symptoms, the areas of mental health, well-being, treatment, and relationships with healthcare teams were found to be important aspects to be addressed. What do the results of the study mean? Focusing on all five aspects of freedom from disease will help people with psoriasis manage their psoriasis with confidence.

Initiating value-based healthcare in psoriasis: Proposing a value-based outcome set for daily clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: With the current trend in healthcare moving towards a more value-based approach, it is essential to understand what value encompasses. OBJECTIVES: To develop an actionable value-based outcome set (VOS) for daily practice. METHODS: A mixed method approach was used consisting of four phases. Formerly, a systematic review was conducted, providing an overview of all patient-relevant outcomes defined in current literature. These 23 outcomes were then presented to a group of patients, using a modified nominal group technique (NGT), to establish whether these results represented all of their relevant outcomes. Subsequently, these outcomes were ranked according to importance by patients attending our academic specialized psoriasis clinic. A review of the literature was performed to assess which instruments were available and suitable to evaluate the outcomes in this VOS. Finally, a pilot feasibility test was performed amongst patients. RESULTS: Of the 23 outcomes, two were omitted from the ranking exercise after the NGT. In the ranking exercise, 120 patients participated. The median age was 50.0 (IQR 25.0) years and 36.7% were female. Median PASI score was 2.4 (IQR 5.2), and treatments varied from topicals to biologicals. The outcomes scored as most important were symptom control, treatment efficacy, confidence in care and control of disease. The least important outcomes were comorbidity control, productivity and cost of care. A significant difference was shown between the ranking of the outcomes (p < 0.001). In total, 12 instruments were selected, which are reported by both patient and provider, to measure the outcomes in this VOS. Median completion time for the patient part was 30 min (IQR 2.8). CONCLUSIONS: This VOS is a first proposal to evaluate psoriasis care in a value-based manner. Measuring these outcomes can enable us to critically appraise and improve current care processes, within the reality of available resources, thereby increasing value for patients.

Blocking interleukin-17 in psoriasis: Real-world experience from the PsoPlus cohort.

BACKGROUND: Real-world studies on the use of biologics in psoriasis (Pso) are increasing, but still scarce. Trough concentrations (Ct s) of interleukin-17 inhibitors (IL-17i) seem promising for clinical decision-making, but their value in daily practice has yet to be proven. OBJECTIVES: To report on IL-17i effectiveness, treatment modifications and Ct use in our clinic. METHODS: Data were collected from IL-17i-treated Pso patients followed up in the PsoPlus clinic at the Dermatology department, Ghent University Hospital, Belgium. Descriptive statistics and Kaplan-Meier analysis were performed. RESULTS: A total of 111 patients were included, counting for 134 IL-17i courses (secukinumab, ixekizumab, and brodalumab). Fifty-five per cent of the patients were bio-naive prior to IL-17i initiation. During maintenance, merely 97.0% and 77% achieved near-complete and complete skin clearance, respectively. Major reasons for treatment modification were suboptimal response (63.0%) and safety issues (9.3%). Reported modifications were switch (25.4%), dose escalation (11.9%), dose de-escalation (6.7%), treatment association (6.0%) and IL-17i stop (3.0%). Overall drug survival was 69.0 months, without difference between the different IL-17i (p = 0.078). Ixekizumab tended to have the highest survival. Drug survival was higher in bio-naive subjects compared to bio-experienced subjects (p = 0.011). Ct was measured in 20 patients and interpreted post hoc. In 85%, the clinical decision was in accordance with the Ct (e.g. substantiated need for dose escalation). For the other cases, the Ct would have led to another clinical decision if known at that time. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study showed that IL-17i are very effective drugs for Pso, with ixekizumab as leading biologic. Prior bio-experience seemed to impact IL-17i drug survival. Treatment modifications were mainly performed in case of insufficient response, primarily via switch and dose escalation, and least frequently in ixekizumab patients. Ct might rationalize clinical decision-making; however, there is need for standardized algorithms to corroborate its use.

Elevating the Standard of Care for Patients with Psoriasis: 'Calls to Action' from Epicensus, a Multistakeholder Pan-European Initiative.

INTRODUCTION: Despite advances in treatment options and the management of patients with psoriasis, considerable unmet needs remain. Our objective was to identify ways to elevate the standard of care for patients with psoriasis by combining the perspectives of three important stakeholders: patients, clinicians and payors, and define 'Calls to Action' designed to achieve the identified changes. METHODS: Eight themes relevant to elevating the standard of care were identified from an insights-gathering questionnaire completed by all three stakeholder groups. A modified Delphi exercise gained consensus on statements informed by the insights. Statements were then used to inspire 'Calls to Action' - practical steps that could be taken to realise the desired changes and elevate the standard of care. RESULTS: In total, 18 European experts (10 dermatologists, 3 payors and 5 patient representatives) took part in the Delphi process. Consensus was reached on statements relating to all eight themes: improve healthcare systems to better support multidisciplinary team working and digital services, real-world data generation and optimal use, improve patient access, elevate quality-of-life measures as the most important outcomes, involve patients in patient-centred and personalised approaches to care, improve the relevance and reach of guidelines, education, and multistakeholder engagement. 'Calls to Action' common to all three stakeholder groups recognised the need to capitalise on the shift to digital healthcare, the need for consistent input into registries to generate real-world evidence to support guideline development, and the necessity of educating patients on the benefits of reporting outcomes to generate real-world data. The enormous quality-of-life burden and psychological impact of psoriasis, as well as the clinical needs of patients must be better understood, including by healthcare commissioners, so that funding priorities are assessed appropriately. CONCLUSION: This unique initiative identified a practical 'Call-to-Action Framework' which, if implemented, could help improve the standard of care for patients with psoriasis.

Despite improvements in the management of psoriasis, there is room for the standard of care for patients to be improved further. The aim of the 'Epicensus' programme is to help realise improvements by bringing together three important stakeholder groups involved in the care of patients with psoriasis: dermatologists, payors and patient representatives. First, unmet needs were explored with these stakeholders and eight themes for change were identified: 1) improve healthcare systems to better support multidisciplinary team working and digital services; 2) optimise real-world data generation and use; 3) improve patient access; 4) elevate quality-of-life measures as the most important outcomes; 5) involve patients in people-centred and personalised approaches to care; 6) improve the relevance and reach of guidelines; 7) education; 8) multistakeholder engagement. Next, a panel of experts representing the three stakeholder groups took part in a consensus process (Delphi) to reach agreement on statements relating to each of the eight themes. The statements describe current problems and what needs to be changed to raise the standard of care for patients with psoriasis. Some of the problems identified are similar to those that existed a decade ago, showing that simply recognising what needs to change is not enough to bring about improvements: action must be taken. Therefore, the Epicensus participants met to produce specific 'Calls to Action'­ practical steps described in this publication that, if put into practice, should contribute to an improvement in the standard of care for patients with psoriasis.

Credibility and Generalization of the Minimally Important Difference Concept in Dermatology: A Scoping Review.

Importance: The minimally important difference (MID) represents the point at which a difference in an outcome measure (eg, Dermatology Life Quality Index) is important enough that it warrants a change in treatment, and, to the authors' knowledge, the robustness and limitations of MIDs have not been thoroughly evaluated in skin diseases. The MID is increasingly used in clinical trials to demonstrate that an intervention is worthwhile for patients; furthermore, MIDs also contribute to sample size calculations in clinical trials, influence treatment guidelines, and can guide clinicians to modify treatment. Objective: To evaluate the credibility and generalization of MIDs for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in skin disorders. Evidence Review: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed and Embase for all original articles using the MID concept for skin disorders from inception to December 29, 2021. The credibility of MIDs obtained via an anchor-based approach (eg, global rating of change scale) was assessed with a previously developed credibility instrument. The validity of generalizing established MIDs to other patient groups was evaluated based on the diagnosis and the patient characteristics. Findings: A total of 126 articles were selected, and 84 different MIDs were identified for PROMs. A total of 13 of 84 MIDs (15.5%) for PROMs displayed acceptable credibility. The anchors used had varying capacity to assess minimal important changes from a patient's perspective and were deemed inappropriate for this purpose in 52 of 84 cases (61.9%). Correlations between the anchors and PROMs were frequently not determined (39 of 84; 46.4%). The time interval for anchor questions assessing a change in the experienced disease burden was not optimal for 10 of 32 transition anchors (>3 months), introducing potential recall bias. Previously reported MIDs were widely used to examine relevant changes in other study populations. However, the diagnosis and disease severity were different from the original MID population in 39 of 70 (55.7%) and 45 of 70 (64.3%) cases, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: In this scoping review, only a minority of MIDs for PROMs demonstrated sufficient credibility in dermatology. Inappropriate generalization of previously reported MIDs to patient populations with different disease characteristics was found to be a major concern. Furthermore, the study supported the use of multiple anchors and encouraged consistent reporting of the correlation between changes in the anchor and changes in the outcome measures.

Patient-Relevant Outcomes in Psoriasis: A Systematic Review.

Importance: There is a need to define which outcomes matter to patients with psoriasis to deliver value for the patient when managing their condition. Objectives: To generate a comprehensive overview of all outcomes relevant in the management of psoriasis as defined by patients. Evidence Review: A systematic review was performed by searching 3 databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science) from August 1, 2019, until March 27, 2021, using a comprehensive search strategy consisting of 4 concepts including psoriasis, patients, outcomes, and relevance. A (citing) reference search was also performed of all retrieved articles. Two independent reviewers screened the retrieved records by title/abstract against the eligibility criteria. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported on the importance of outcomes for patients with psoriasis. No language restrictions were used. Data extraction and quality assessment were also performed independently. Quality assessment was done using the QUALSYST tool. Findings: In total, 10 365 records were screened for eligibility, of which 24 studies were included for synthesis. A total of 23 317 patients were evaluated, and 273 (154 unique) items were retrieved. These items were aggregated into 23 outcomes: (almost) complete clearance; symptom control; difficult location clearance; time to clearance; treatment efficacy, sustainability, safety, tolerability, and convenience; comorbidity control; daily and social activity; emotional well-being; intimate relationships; productivity; health-related quality of life; confidence in care; control of disease; communication with care professional; information from other sources than care professional; and cost of care (societal and for the patient). These were then further grouped into 4 core areas: physical/clinical, life impact, resource use, and adverse effects. The mean overall quality of the studies was 75.6% (range, 35.7%-100%). Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review analyzed patient-relevant outcomes reported in patients with psoriasis to aid in the transition to a value-based treatment approach.