The Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) as the Primary Outcome in Randomised Clinical Trials: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Primary endpoint measures in clinical trials are typically measures of disease severity, with patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) relegated as secondary endpoints. However validation of some PROMs may be more rigorous than that of disease severity measures, arguing for a primary role for PROMs. OBJECTIVES: This study reports on 24 peer reviewed journal articles that used the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) as primary outcome, derived from a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) utlising DLQI covering all diseases and interventions. MATERIALS AND METHOD: The study protocol was prospectively published on the PROSPERO database, and the study followed PRISMA guidelines. Searches were made with Medline, Cochrane library, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS, CINAHL(EBSCO) and PsycINFO databases and records combined into an Endnote database. Records were filtered for duplicates and selected by study inclusion/exclusion criteria. Full text articles were sourced and data was extracted by two reviewers into a bespoke REDCap database, with a third reviewer adjudicating differences. The Jadad scoring method was used to determine risk of bias. RESULTS: Of the 3,220 publications retrieved from online searching, 457 articles met eligibility criteria and included 198,587 patients. DLQI scores were primary outcomes in 24 (5.3%) of these studies comprising 15 different diseases and 3,436 patients. Most study interventions (17/24 studies, 68%) were systemic drugs with biologics (liraglutide, alefacept, secukinumab, ustekinumab, adalimumab) accounting for five out of 25 pharmacological interventions (20%). Topical treaments comprised 32% (8 studies) whereas non-pharmacological interventions (8) were 24% of the total interventions (33). Three studies used non-traditional medicines. Eight studies were multicentred (33.3%), with trials conducted in at least 14 different countries, and four (16.7%) were conducted in multiple countries. The Jadad risk of bias scale showed that bias was uncertain or low, as 87.5% of studies had Jadad scores of ≥3. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence for use of the DLQI as primary outcome in clinical trials to inform researchers' and clinicians' decisions for its further use.

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.

Theoretical insight into the antioxidant properties of melatonin and derivatives.

Density functional theory calculations on melatonin, metabolites and synthetic derivatives thereof, and a range of other biological antioxidant molecules are presented, with a view to understanding the antioxidant ability of these molecules. After testing of the necessary calculations, we show that melatonin lies close to vitamin E on a donor-acceptor map, indicating that it should be an excellent electron donor but a poor acceptor. The neutral radical metabolite of melatonin is predicted to be an even better donor, whereas other metabolites and synthetic derivatives should retain antioxidant ability but are less powerful than the parent. QSAR models of antioxidant activity, measured in two different assays, are presented. We show that octanol-water partition coefficient is an excellent predictor of activity in lipophilic media, while properties related to electron donor/acceptor power give good fits against activity in aqueous media.

Intranasal melatonin nanoniosomes: pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamics and toxicity studies.

AIM: Intranasal melatonin encapsulated in nanosized niosomes was preclinically evaluated. METHODOLOGY: A formula of melatonin niosomes (MN) was selected through physicochemical and cytotoxic data for pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamics and toxicity studies in male Wistar rats. RESULTS: Intranasal MN was bioequivalent to intravenous injection of melatonin, providing therapeutic level doses. Acute and subchronic toxicity screening showed no abnormal signs, symptoms or hematological effects in any animals. Transient nasal irritations with no inflammation were observed with intranasal MN, leading it to be categorized as relatively harmless. CONCLUSION: The intranasal MN could deliver melatonin to the brain to induce sleep and provide delayed systemic circulation, relative to intravenous injection and also distribute to peripheral tissue.