Identifying critical quality metrics in Mohs Surgery: A national expert consensus process.

BACKGROUND: Amid a movement toward value-based healthcare, increasing emphasis has been placed on outcomes and cost of medical services. To define and demonstrate the quality of services provided by Mohs surgeons, it is important to identify and understand the key aspects of Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) that contribute to excellence in patient care. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to develop and identify a comprehensive list of metrics in an initial effort to define excellence in MMS. METHODS: Mohs surgeons participated in a modified Delphi process to reach a consensus on a list of metrics. Patients were administered surveys to gather patient perspectives. RESULTS: Twenty-four of the original 66 metrics met final inclusion criteria. Broad support for the initiative was obtained through physician feedback. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of this study include attrition bias across survey rounds and participation at the consensus meeting. Furthermore, the list of metrics is based on expert consensus instead of quality evidence-based outcomes. CONCLUSION: With the goal of identifying metrics that demonstrate excellence in performance of MMS, this initial effort has shown that Mohs surgeons and patients have unique perspectives and can be engaged in a data-driven approach to help define excellence in the field of MMS.

Treatment of Surgical Scars With Combination Pulsed Dye and Fractional Nonablative Laser: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and safety of combined pulsed-dye laser (PDL) and NAFL for treatment of surgical scars. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: PDL and NAFL have not been compared to healing by time alone. METHODS: Randomized controlled, single-blinded clinical trial at an urban, university hospital. Healthy adults' status post skin surgery with primary closure were randomized to either 3 sessions of combination PDL and NAFL every 2 to 8 weeks, or control of no treatment. At baseline and 36-week follow-up, Patient and observer Scar Assessment Scale and Scar Cosmesis Assessment and Rating were completed by participants and blinded physicians. The primary outcome was scar improvement, as measured by the score difference over time. RESULTS: Of 76 participants, 52 completed the study (July 2017 to June 2019). No severe adverse events were reported. Patient and observer Scar Assessment Scale assessments demonstrated improvement in total score in the laser group compared to controls, as reported by patients [mean difference (standard deviation), laser: 12.86 (6.91) vs control: 7.25 (6.34); P = 0.004] and blinded physicians [18.32 (8.69) vs 13.08 (9.63); P = 0.044]. Patients observed a greater improvement in scar thickness [3.68 (2.04) vs 1.88 (1.85); P = 0.002] and stiffness [3.57 (2.78) vs 1.50 (2.11); P = 0.004] with lasers, and physicians reported greater improvement in vascularity [3.71 (1.98) vs 1.71 (1.52); P = 0.0002]. The live Scar Cosmesis Assessment and Rating subscore for erythema improved significantly with lasers [1.04 (0.79) vs 0.42 (0.50); P = 0.001]. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Combined PDL and NAFL resulted in scar improvement. Scar thickness, stiffness, and erythema were improved. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03057964).

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.

Core outcome sets in clinical laser research: how better evidence can be better for patients.

Core outcome sets, or the minimum sets of outcomes that would be used in all clinical studies of a given disease or condition, have the potential to revolutionize clinical research in laser and energy devices. Currently, laser studies, like other clinical investigations in medicine, measure whatever outcomes the individual investigators deem appropriate, making it difficult to compare safety and efficacy of various treatments through meta-analyses. The development of core outcome sets is rigorous, and involves systematic literature reviews, interviews with various stakeholders such as industry researchers, regulatory bodies, non-physician providers, patients and family members, as well as an international Delphi consensus process with input from both patients and physicians. Following the establishment of core outcome sets, core outcome measures are developed, with one measure being the preferred means for assessing each core outcome. Uptake of core outcome sets and measures can make it much easier to combine the results of different studies of the same condition across treatment modalities and geographic regions. Once researchers are all reporting, at a minimum, the same outcomes and using the same outcome measures, patients will truly be well-served, and we will then be working cooperatively, worldwide, to answer the same important questions. In doing so, we will move the science of laser medicine forward.

The Sensitivity of In Vitro Permeation Tests to Chemical Penetration Enhancer Concentration Changes in Fentanyl Transdermal Delivery Systems.

Chemical penetration enhancers (CPEs) are frequently incorporated into transdermal delivery systems (TDSs) to improve drug delivery and to reduce the required drug load in formulations. However, the minimum detectable effect of formulation changes to CPE-containing TDSs using in vitro permeation tests (IVPT), a widely used method to characterize permeation of topically applied drug products, remains unclear. The objective of the current exploratory study was to investigate the sensitivity of IVPT in assessing permeation changes with CPE concentration modifications and subsequently the feasibility of IVPT's use for support of quality control related to relative CPE concentration variation in a given formulation. A series of drug-in-adhesive (DIA) fentanyl TDSs with different amounts of CPEs were prepared, and IVPT studies utilizing porcine and human skin were performed. Although IVPT could discern TDSs with different amounts of CPE by significant differences in flux profiles, maximum flux (Jmax) values, and total permeation amounts, the magnitudes of the CPE increment needed to see such significant differences were very high (43-300%) indicating that IVPT may have limitations in detecting small changes in CPE amounts in some TDSs. Possible reasons for such limitations include formulation polymer and/or other excipients, type of CPE, variability associated with IVPT, skin type used, and disrupted stratum corneum (SC) barrier effects caused by CPEs.

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.

Treatment of traumatic hypertrophic scars and keloids: a systematic review of randomized control trials.

Exaggerated healing and remodeling after skin injury may cause hypertrophic and keloidal scars, which are associated with functional and quality of life impairment. There is limited guidance available regarding the relative effectiveness of therapies for hypertrophic scars and keloids. In this review, we aim to compare the effectiveness of treatments for hypertrophic scars and keloids. MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Collaboration database were searched from inception to March 2019 for randomized control trials of treatments for hypertrophic and keloid scars that included 20 or more patients. Outcomes evaluated included the standardized mean reduction in scarring and adverse events. The type of scar and the demographic features were analyzed for their effect on clinical outcome. Based on 25 included clinical trials, intralesional injection (64.1% [95% CI 60.8-67.5%]) may be more effective than physical (29.9% [95% CI 28.9-30.9%]) or topical treatments (34% [95% CI 31.8-36.8%]). Combination of 5-fluorouracil and triamcinolone (9:1 dilution) appeared superior among intralesional treatments for keloids. Ablative laser and pulsed-dye laser were the most useful laser treatments. Regression modeling showed laser treatment response was linked to Fitzpatrick skin type (p = 0.002). Adverse events were uncommon for all treatments and mostly transient. Intralesional treatments for keloid and hypertrophic scars may be the most reliable treatment option to improve pathologic scars, while laser treatment may have specific benefits for Fitzpatrick skin types I-III over types IV-VI. Management of pathological scars is an area of critical need, where appropriate treatment can have a significant impact on quality of life.

Development of an international glossary for clinical guidelines collaboration.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are often created through collaboration among organizations. The use of inconsistent terminology may cause poor communication and delays. This study aimed to develop a glossary of terms related to collaboration in guideline development. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A literature review of collaborative guidelines was performed to develop an initial list of terms related to guideline collaboration. The list of terms was presented to the members of the Guideline International Network Guidelines Collaboration Working Group, who provided presumptive definitions for each term and proposed additional terms to be included. The revised list was subsequently reviewed by an international, multidisciplinary panel of expert stakeholders. Recommendations received during this pre-Delphi review were implemented to augment an initial draft glossary. The glossary was then critically evaluated and refined through two rounds of Delphi surveys and a virtual consensus meeting with all panel members as Delphi participants. RESULTS: Forty-nine experts participated in the pre-Delphi survey, and 44 participated in the two-round Delphi process. Consensus was reached for 37 terms and definitions. CONCLUSION: Uptake and utilization of this guideline collaboration glossary by key organizations and stakeholder groups may facilitate collaboration among guideline-producing organizations by improving communication, minimizing conflicts, and increasing guideline development efficiency.

The evidence base for US joint commission hospital accreditation standards: cross sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence upon which standards for hospital accreditation by The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (the Joint Commission) are based. DESIGN: Cross sectional study. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: Four Joint Commission R3 (requirement, rationale, and reference) reports released by July 2018 and intended to become effective between 1 July 2018 and 1 July 2019. INTERVENTIONS: From each R3 report the associated standard and its specific elements of performance (or actionable standards) were extracted. If an actionable standard enumerated multiple requirements, these were separated into distinct components. Two investigators reviewed full text references, and each actionable standard was classified as either completely supported, partly supported, or not supported; Oxford evidence quality ratings were assigned; and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess the strength of recommendations. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Strengths of recommendation for actionable standards. RESULTS: 20 actionable standards with 76 distinct components were accompanied by 48 references. Of the 20 actionable standards, six (30%) were completely supported by cited references, six were partly supported (30%), and eight (40%) were not supported. Of the six directly supported actionable standards, one (17%) cited at least one reference of level 1 or 2 evidence, none cited at least one reference of level 3 evidence, and five (83%) cited references of level 4 or 5 evidence. Of the completely supported actionable standards, strength of recommendation in five was deemed GRADE D and in one was GRADE B. CONCLUSIONS: In general, recent actionable standards issued by The Joint Commission are seldom supported by high quality data referenced within the issuing documents. The Joint Commission might consider being more transparent about the quality of evidence and underlying rationale supporting each of its recommendations, including clarifying when and why in certain instances it determines that lower level evidence is sufficient.

State medical board regulation of compounding in physician offices.

BACKGROUND: After Congress passed the Drug Quality and Security Act (DQSA) in 2013, new rules led to increased oversight of compounding pharmacies and also draft guidance relating to compounding in physicians' offices. OBJECTIVE: To gather information from state medical board directors about the nature and frequency of reported adverse events associated with compounding in physicians' offices, and board policies regarding the regulation of such compounding. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey study. Participants were surveyed regarding: (1) the number of compounding-associated adverse events in physician offices; and (2) the extent to which their board implements United States Pharmacopeia (USP) standards on physician office compounding. SETTING: Remote data collection at an academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Executive directors or comparable executives of state medical and osteopathic boards. MEASUREMENTS: Adverse event reports associated with medications compounded in physician offices. State board rules consistent with USP compounding standards for physician offices. RESULTS: Seventy percent of state boards (47/67) responded, with 42 complete responses analyzed. The majority (71%) of boards able to provide information on compounding errors had received no reports of these. None of the reported errors were known to have resulted in patient harm. Ninety percent of respondents had not incorporated any USP compounding standards into their regulations. CONCLUSION:  These findings suggest that the incidence of adverse events associated with in-office compounding is low, and that this may be limiting the propensity of state medical and osteopathic boards to implement strict regulations, such as USP compounding standards, that would further restrict such compounding. Therefore, regulatory agencies and legislators would better serve their mission by reallocating resources to ensure the integrity of other aspects of the drug supply chain.

Increased regulation of medication compounding by state boards of pharmacy.

BACKGROUND: Medications may be specially prepared, or "compounded," to meet the needs of patients who cannot use standard formulation. The United States Pharmacopeia (USP) Convention is a private, nongovernmental organization which independently develops guidelines for pharmaceuticals. The purpose of this survey study is to better understand the extent to which state boards of pharmacy currently incorporate relevant USP guidelines into their compounding regulations. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Executive directors or other administrative representatives of each state board of pharmacy were invited to respond to six open-ended questions. Their free text responses were analyzed by two reviewers (KR, SI) using qualitative research techniques. The response rate was 71% (36/51). Almost all (35/36, 97%) indicated that they implement USP compounding standards at least in part. Eighteen boards (18/28, 64%) reported that 'some, but not all standards' are enforced, most commonly < 795 > and < 797 > , but not < 800 > (9/28, 32%). Ten (10/28, 36%) indicated that 'all' USP compounding standards are enforced. Eighteen (18/21, 86%) only implement finalized USP standards, whereas three consider newly proposed chapters (3/21, 14%). Over half (22/36, 61%) employ a committee or similar process to select standards. CONCLUSIONS: Almost all responding state boards of pharmacy incorporate finalized USP compounding standards into their regulations, usually via a formal rulemaking process, with boards commonly implementing some standards but not all. Chapters < 795 > and < 797 > are implemented more commonly than < 800 > . Since Congress passed the Drug Quality and Security Act (DQSA), pharmacy boards are becoming increasingly observant of USP compounding standards.

The Cutaneous Procedures Adverse Events Reporting (CAPER) Registry.

The CAPER Registry is a voluntary, national safety reporting program that gathers patients' adverse events encountered during dermatologic procedures. This registry is intended as an aid for practitioners, patients, industry, and government regulators, and aims to facilitate safety monitoring for the specialty by identifying resource, process, education, and other systemic gaps associated with adverse events, as well as any potential risk factors for adverse events. CAPER will provide new or corroborating information to help dermatologists improve clinical practices, improve safety and effectiveness, and treat and prevent adverse events. The data generated will also help industry partners and regulatory bodies prevent adverse events from going unnoticed.

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.

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.