Impact of off-label use regulations on patient care in dermatology - a prospective study of cost-coverage applications filed by tertiary dermatology clinics throughout Germany.

BACKGROUND: In dermatology, a medical speciality with a relatively high number of rare diseases, physicians often have to resort to off-label treatment options. To avoid claims, physicians in Germany can file a cost-coverage request (off-label application, OL-A). OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to investigate the extent to which the current regulations affect patient care. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Prospective cohort study among tertiary dermatology clinics throughout Germany, consecutively including OL-As (05/2019-09/2020) and assessing the follow-up correspondence. We modelled regressions to assess factors associated with cost-coverage decisions and the time needed by health insurers to process the OL-As. RESULTS: Thirteen clinics provided data on 121 OL-As, two of which applied for on-label treatments. Of the remaining 119 OL-As, 70 (58.8%) were immediately approved and 44 (37.0%) rejected. Including cases with one or more appeals, 87 of 119 OL-As (73.1%) were finally approved and 26 (21.9%) rejected. There was an association of the final approval rate with (1) the class of medication/treatment, with approval rates being significantly lower for JAK inhibitors than for biologics (OR 0.16, 95%-CI: 0.03-0.82); (2) German state, with approval rates being lower in eastern than in western states (OR 0.30, 95%-CI 0.12-0.76); and (3) cost of the intervention (no linear trend). However, none of these predictors was significant in our multiple logistic regression models. The median health insurer's processing time (first response) was 29 days (IQR 22-38). Our analyses showed no evidence of an association with the predictors we assessed. In cases approved, the median time from the decision to file an OL-A to the actual initiation of the treatment was 65.5 days (IQR 51-92). CONCLUSIONS: Our study points to substantial delays and inequalities in the provision of timely health care for dermatological patients with rare diseases, often involving treatments for which there is no adequate approved therapy.

European guideline (EuroGuiDerm) on atopic eczema: part I - systemic therapy.

The evidence- and consensus-based guideline on atopic eczema was developed in accordance with the EuroGuiDerm Guideline and Consensus Statement Development Manual. Four consensus conferences were held between December 2020 and July 2021. Twenty-nine experts (including clinicians and patient representatives) from 12 European countries participated. This first part of the guideline includes general information on its scope and purpose, the health questions covered, target users and a methods section. It also provides guidance on which patients should be treated with systemic therapies, as well as recommendations and detailed information on each systemic drug. The systemic treatment options discussed in the guideline comprise conventional immunosuppressive drugs (azathioprine, ciclosporin, glucocorticosteroids, methotrexate and mycophenolate mofetil), biologics (dupilumab, lebrikizumab, nemolizumab, omalizumab and tralokinumab) and janus kinase inhibitors (abrocitinib, baricitinib and upadacitinib). Part two of the guideline will address avoidance of provocation factors, dietary interventions, immunotherapy, complementary medicine, educational interventions, occupational and psychodermatological aspects, patient perspective and considerations for paediatric, adolescent, pregnant and breastfeeding patients.

European guideline (EuroGuiDerm) on atopic eczema - part II: non-systemic treatments and treatment recommendations for special AE patient populations.

The evidence- and consensus-based guideline on atopic eczema was developed in accordance with the EuroGuiDerm Guideline and Consensus Statement Development Manual. Four consensus conferences were held between December 2020 and July 2021. Twenty-nine experts (including clinicians and patient representatives) from 12 European countries participated. This second part of the guideline includes recommendations and detailed information on basic therapy with emollients and moisturizers, topical anti-inflammatory treatment, antimicrobial and antipruritic treatment and UV phototherapy. Furthermore, this part of the guideline covers techniques for avoiding provocation factors, as well as dietary interventions, immunotherapy, complementary medicine and educational interventions for patients with atopic eczema and deals with occupational and psychodermatological aspects of the disease. It also contains guidance on treatment for paediatric and adolescent patients and pregnant or breastfeeding women, as well as considerations for patients who want to have a child. A chapter on the patient perspective is also provided. The first part of the guideline, published separately, contains recommendations and guidance on systemic treatment with conventional immunosuppressive drugs, biologics and janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, as well as information on the scope and purpose of the guideline, and a section on guideline methodology.

Immunogenicity of biologic therapies in psoriasis: Myths, facts and a suggested approach.

With biologic drugs dominating the therapeutic space for severe immune-mediated inflammatory disease, it is critical for clinicians to be familiar with the concept of drug immunogenicity, with the potential for our patients to develop antidrug antibodies (ADA) of clinical relevance. Whilst there are clear differences between different therapeutic biologics in terms of reported ADA rates, there is no accepted dermatology guideline or grouping of drugs by risk of clinically relevant ADA, nor a consensus on approach to ADA management. This is partly because making valid comparisons of immunogenicity across drugs is fundamentally flawed: the differing types of ADA assay, trial design and included patient population - as well as the molecular structure of the biologic molecules themselves - are all highly influential on reported ADA prevalence and impact on clinical response. Therefore, the first part of this article aims to give an overview of ADA that also clarifies common misconceptions on the subject, whilst the second part of this article outlines Phase III immunogenicity data on commonly used biologics for psoriasis, the most common dermatological indication. Based on this, and acknowledging current limitations in available evidence, we propose a working categorization of biologics together with a broad approach to management: Group 1 - biologics with higher risk of clinically relevant ADA; Group 2 - biologics with lower risk of clinically relevant ADA; and Group 3 - biologics with no established risk of clinically relevant ADA. However, these groupings represent a working concept only; more research is required, using comparable ADA assays and consistent reporting of related outcomes. Finally, there is an urgent need for better characterization of individuals at particular risk of developing ADA to inform future clinical decision-making.

EuroGuiDerm Guideline on the systemic treatment of Psoriasis vulgaris - Part 2: specific clinical and comorbid situations.

This evidence- and consensus-based guideline on the treatment of psoriasis vulgaris was developed following the EuroGuiDerm Guideline and Consensus Statement Development Manual. The second part of the guideline provides guidance for specific clinical and comorbid situations such as treating psoriasis vulgaris patient with concomitant psoriatic arthritis, concomitant inflammatory bowel disease, a history of malignancies or a history of depression or suicidal ideation. It further holds recommendations for concomitant diabetes, viral hepatitis, disease affecting the heart or the kidneys as well as concomitant neurological disease. Advice on how to screen for tuberculosis and recommendations on how to manage patients with a positive tuberculosis test result are given. It further covers treatment for pregnant women or patients with a wish for a child in the near future. Information on vaccination, immunogenicity and systemic treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic is also provided.

[Current dermatology guidelines in Germany and Europe : A selection of clinically relevant recommendations]. / Aktuelle dermatologische Leitlinien in Deutschland und Europa : Eine praxisorientierte Übersicht ausgewählter Empfehlungen.

Clinical practice guidelines are systematically developed decision aids for specific medical conditions. In Germany, national dermatology guidelines are developed chiefly under the aegis of the German Dermatological Society in collaboration with the Professional Association of German Dermatologists. European and international dermatological guidelines also exist and are developed by a range of organisations, such as the European Centre for Guidelines Development, which was founded by the European Dermatology Forum in 2018. In the years 2019 and 2020, new or updated German national guidelines were published on topics such as pathological scars (hypertrophic scars and keloids), cutaneous lupus erythematosus, pyoderma grangrenosum, anal pruritus, anal eczema, anal canal and anal rim carcinomas, as well as the prevention of HPV-associated neoplasms through vaccination, syphilis and the systemic treatment of neurodermitis. A new European guideline on lichen planus closes a gap in the spectrum of guidelines available in Germany. Key recommendations and relevant changes in the guidelines are presented in this article.

European S1 guidelines on the management of lichen planus: a cooperation of the European Dermatology Forum with the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Lichen planus (LP) is a chronic inflammatory and immune-mediated disease that affects the skin, hair, nails and mucous membranes. Although there is a broad clinical spectrum of lichen planus manifestations, the skin and oral cavity remain the major sites of involvement. A group of European dermatologists with a long-standing interest and expertise in lichen planus has sought to define therapeutic guidelines for the management of patients with LP. The clinical features, diagnosis and possible medications that clinicians can use, in order to control the disease, will be reviewed in this manuscript. The revised final version of the lichen planus guideline was passed on to the European Dermatology Forum (EDF) for a final consensus with the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV).

EuroGuiDerm Guideline on the systemic treatment of Psoriasis vulgaris - Part 1: treatment and monitoring recommendations.

This evidence- and consensus-based guideline on the treatment of psoriasis vulgaris was developed following the EuroGuiDerm Guideline and Consensus Statement Development Manual. The first part of the guideline includes general information on the scope and purpose, health questions covered, target users and strength/limitations of the guideline. Suggestions for disease severity grading and treatment goals are provided. It presents the general treatment recommendations as well as detailed management and monitoring recommendations for the individual drugs. The treatment options discussed in this guideline are as follows: acitretin, ciclosporin, fumarates, methotrexate, adalimumab, apremilast, brodalumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, guselkumab, infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, secukinumab, tildrakizumab and ustekinumab.

Comparison of guidelines for the management of patients with high-risk and advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma - a systematic review.

The management of high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) can be a challenge as evidence from high quality clinical trials is rare. Guideline developers are challenged to provide practical and useful guidance for clinicians even in the absence of good evidence. In order to compare treatment recommendations for high-risk and advanced cSCC among national and international guidelines and to extract the most precise guidance provided, a systematic search was carried out in guideline databases Medline and Embase with a cutoff of 4 March 2019. Treatment recommendations for predefined clinical scenarios were extracted from selected guidelines and compared qualitatively. Five guidelines published from 2015 to 2018 were included. Excision of high-risk tumours with margin assessment was recommended in all guidelines. A safety margin of at least 6 mm was suggested in four guidelines. There was no clear recommendation to perform a sentinel lymph node biopsy in any guideline. Lymph node dissection was uniformly recommended in the presence of nodal disease. Treatment for metastatic cSCC was poorly characterized and restricted to the use of chemotherapy and epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors. Recommendations for the management of high-risk and advanced cSCC were limited. We propose that guidelines should be updated to reflect recent advances in checkpoint blockade for metastatic cSCC.

Efficacy and safety of systemic treatments in psoriatic arthritis: a systematic review, meta-analysis and GRADE evaluation.

Twenty per cent of patients with plaque psoriasis also have psoriatic arthritis - a disease affecting joints and entheses. Different treatment options exist but currently no succinct systematic overview exists. A systematic review of approved systemic treatments for psoriatic arthritis was conducted. We systematically searched in three databases (last update September 2017). Data were extracted for ACR20/50, HAQ-DI, SF-36 and adverse/serious adverse events after 16-24 weeks. We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE. Twenty trials were included. Three trials compared two active substances. Results for ACR20 were infliximab + methotrexate vs. methotrexate: RR 1.40 (95% CI 1.07-1.84) very low quality evidence; ixekizumab Q2W vs. adalimumab Q2W: RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.86-1.36) very low quality, leflunomide vs. methotrexate: RR 1.01, (95% CI 0.84-1.21) low quality. Eighteen drug vs. placebo comparisons were included. For ACR20/50, HAQ-DI and SF-36, the active treatment was efficacious and the quality of the evidence was mostly moderate to low (15 of 18 comparisons). The quality of evidence for (serious) adverse events was mostly low; differences were rare. In three placebo-controlled comparisons, leflunomide, MTX and sulfasalazine failed to show statistical superiority for ACR. Besides the established treatment of anti-TNF antibodies and ustekinumab for psoriatic arthritis, the newer treatment options of IL17 antibodies and apremilast are also effective for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis. Based on just one comparative trial and one drug each, the new class of anti-IL 17 antibodies appears to be equally effective as the group of anti-TNF antibodies; for apremilast, this is yet unclear.

Prioritizing topics in guideline development: results of a two-phase online survey of dermatologist members of the EADV.

BACKGROUND: Most clinical guidelines in dermatology are encyclopaedic, covering a disease and its aetiology, diagnosis, treatment and prevention in their entirety. The usability and uptake of guideline recommendations might be improved by guidelines that are more concise and address specific questions ranked by users according to their perceived importance. OBJECTIVE: To survey the largest association of dermatologists in Europe, identify which questions in their everyday practice they felt would benefit from short, evidence-based guidance and rank these systematically. METHODS: A two-phase online survey using a structured ranking approach and the members directory of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV). RESULTS: The first survey yielded 265 suggestions, indicating a response rate of 3.7%. We grouped all responses according to themes and subsequently combined these into a list of 35 broader topics. These were presented to all members of the EADV in the second survey (response rate: 9.7%), which yielded a list of the top 10 topics participants felt were most in need of guidance. The first three were 'Systemic drug treatment in dermatology during pregnancy and for women wishing to have children in the near future', 'alopecia areata' and 'interpretation of laboratory results in connective tissue diseases'. CONCLUSION: Our two-phase survey of EADV members and a structured ranking process were practical to implement and yielded a list of the top 10 topics in dermatology and venereology for guideline development. Guideline dissemination needs to be improved, and practical, more concise guidelines may facilitate efforts to do so.

[Dermatosurgery in the age of novel oral anticoagulants/direct oral anticoagulants]. / Dermatochirurgie im Zeitalter der neuen oralen Antikoagulanzien/direkten oralen Antikoagulanzien.

Current guidelines generally recommend continuation of blood thinning drugs in dermatologic surgery and the previously used "bridging" with subcutaneous or intravenous heparin is obsolete. While the guidelines are increasingly implemented in daily practice, there is still uncertainty concerning the use of the novel direct oral anticoagulants (NOAC = DOAC). In this review, we analyze current developments and formulate concise recommendations for continuation during skin surgery under consideration of individual risk.

The international WAO/EAACI guideline for the management of hereditary angioedema-The 2017 revision and update.

Hereditary Angioedema (HAE) is a rare and disabling disease. Early diagnosis and appropriate therapy are essential. This update and revision of the global guideline for HAE provides up-to-date consensus recommendations for the management of HAE. In the development of this update and revision of the guideline, an international expert panel reviewed the existing evidence and developed 20 recommendations that were discussed, finalized and consented during the guideline consensus conference in June 2016 in Vienna. The final version of this update and revision of the guideline incorporates the contributions of a board of expert reviewers and the endorsing societies. The goal of this guideline update and revision is to provide clinicians and their patients with guidance that will assist them in making rational decisions in the management of HAE with deficient C1-inhibitor (type 1) and HAE with dysfunctional C1-inhibitor (type 2). The key clinical questions covered by these recommendations are: (1) How should HAE-1/2 be defined and classified?, (2) How should HAE-1/2 be diagnosed?, (3) Should HAE-1/2 patients receive prophylactic and/or on-demand treatment and what treatment options should be used?, (4) Should HAE-1/2 management be different for special HAE-1/2 patient groups such as pregnant/lactating women or children?, and (5) Should HAE-1/2 management incorporate self-administration of therapies and patient support measures?

The EAACI/GA²LEN/EDF/WAO guideline for the definition, classification, diagnosis and management of urticaria.

This evidence- and consensus-based guideline was developed following the methods recommended by Cochrane and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group. The conference was held on 1 December 2016. It is a joint initiative of the Dermatology Section of the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the EU-founded network of excellence, the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA²LEN), the European Dermatology Forum (EDF) and the World Allergy Organization (WAO) with the participation of 48 delegates of 42 national and international societies. This guideline was acknowledged and accepted by the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS). Urticaria is a frequent, mast cell-driven disease, presenting with wheals, angioedema, or both. The lifetime prevalence for acute urticaria is approximately 20%. Chronic spontaneous urticaria and other chronic forms of urticaria are disabling, impair quality of life and affect performance at work and school. This guideline covers the definition and classification of urticaria, taking into account the recent progress in identifying its causes, eliciting factors and pathomechanisms. In addition, it outlines evidence-based diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for the different subtypes of urticaria.

Time, Psoriasis Area and Severity Index and Dermatology Life Quality Index of patients with psoriasis who drop out of clinical trials on etanercept because of lack of efficacy: a pooled analysis from 10 clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes in psoriasis studies are assessed at specific study time points. If a treatment has not become effective by a certain time point, it may increase the likelihood of patients being dissatisfied and leaving a clinical study. OBJECTIVES: To generate evidence concerning the number of patients dropping out of etanercept trials over time including Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) data. METHODS: Data from patients with psoriasis in 10 trials with etanercept were pooled. Analyses were performed for (i) patients who dropped out because of 'lack of efficacy' and (ii) patients who continued the trial. The PASI and DLQI data were summarized for different time points. The distribution of dropout over time, PASI, DLQI and the proportion of patients dropping out with given treatment responses were calculated. RESULTS: Of 6119 patients, 128 dropped out because of lack of efficacy (or synonym). The highest increase of patients dropping out happened between day 75 and 85 (cumulative percentage rise from 46% to 73%). The lowest PASI of patients dropping out was 6·3 within 120 days. Individuals who dropped out who achieved ≥ PASI 75 (at least a 75% improvement from baseline PASI) were rare. CONCLUSIONS: A critical time when many patients might have lost their willingness to wait for their treatment with etanercept to show a better effect appeared to be at around day 80. Most of the patients dropping out showed little improvement, stable disease or worsening of their psoriasis.

Laser treatments in early wound healing improve scar appearance: a randomized split-wound trial with nonablative fractional laser exposures vs. untreated controls.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, various lasers have increasingly been applied during wound healing to minimize scar formation. However, no consensus regarding treatment procedures exists. OBJECTIVES: To assess scar formation clinically after three nonablative fractional laser (NAFL) exposures, targeting the inflammation, proliferation and remodelling wound healing phases in patients vs. untreated controls. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was performed using a split-wound design to assess excisional wound halves treated with 1540-nm NAFL vs. no laser treatment. Three NAFL exposures were provided: immediately before surgery, at suture removal and 6 weeks after surgery. NAFL exposures were applied using two handpieces, sequentially distributing energy deeply and more superficially in the skin (40-50 mJ per microbeam). Evaluated at 3 months of follow-up, the primary outcome was blinded, on-site evaluation using the Patient Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS total; range from 6, normal skin to 60, worst imaginable scar). Secondary outcomes comprised blinded evaluation on the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) and standardized assessment comparing scar sides, carried out by blinded on-site, photo and patient assessments. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03253484). RESULTS: Thirty of 32 patients completed the trial. At the 3-month follow-up, the NAFL-treated scar halves showed improvement compared with the untreated control halves on POSAS total: NAFL treated, median 11, interquartile range (IQR) 9-12 vs. control, median 12, IQR 10-16; P = 0·001. The POSAS subitems showed that the NAFL-treated halves were significantly less red and more pliable, and presented with smoother relief than the untreated controls. VSS total correspondingly revealed enhanced appearance in the NAFL-treated halves: median 2, IQR 1-2·5 vs. control, median 2, IQR 1·75-3, P = 0·007. The standardized assessment comparing appearance of scar halves demonstrated a low degree of correspondence between on-site, photo and patient assessments. NAFL-treated scars were rated as superior to untreated scars by 21 of 29 patients. CONCLUSIONS: NAFL-treated scars showed subtle improvement compared with untreated control scars.

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison of efficacy in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis treated with ixekizumab vs. secukinumab.

BACKGROUND: Head-to-head randomized studies comparing ixekizumab and secukinumab in the treatment of psoriasis are not available. OBJECTIVES: To assess efficacy and quality of life using matching-adjusted indirect comparisons for treatment with ixekizumab vs. secukinumab. METHODS: Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) improvement of at least 75%, 90% and 100% and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) 0/1 response rates for approved dosages of ixekizumab (160 mg at Week 0, then 80 mg every two weeks for the first 12 weeks) and secukinumab (300 mg at Weeks 0, 1, 2, 3 and 4, then 300 mg every 4 weeks) treatment were compared using data from active (etanercept and ustekinumab) and placebo-controlled studies. Comparisons were made using the Bucher (BU) method and two modified versions of the Signorovitch (SG) method (SG total and SG separate). Subsequently, results based on active treatment common comparators were combined using generic inverse-variance meta-analysis. RESULTS: In the meta-analysis of studies with active comparators, PASI 90 response rates were 12·7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 5·5-19·8, P = 0·0005], 10·0% (95% CI 2·1-18·0, P = 0·01) and 11·2% (95% CI 3·2-19·1, P = 0·006) higher and PASI 100 response rates were 11·7% (95% CI 5·9-17·5, P < 0·001), 12·7% (95% CI 6·0-19·4, P < 0·001) and 13·1% (95% CI 6·3-19·9, P < 0·001) higher for ixekizumab compared with secukinumab using BU, SG total and SG separate methods. PASI 75 results were comparable when SG methods were used and favoured ixekizumab when the BU method was used. Week 12 DLQI 0/1 response rates did not differ significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Ixekizumab had higher PASI 90 and PASI 100 responses at week 12 compared with secukinumab using adjusted indirect comparisons.

Core outcome sets in dermatology: report from the second meeting of the International Cochrane Skin Group Core Outcome Set Initiative.

Results of clinical trials are the most important information source for generating external clinical evidence. The use of different outcomes across trials, which investigate similar interventions for similar patient groups, significantly limits the interpretation, comparability and clinical application of trial results. Core outcome sets (COSs) aim to overcome this limitation. A COS is an agreed standardized collection of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials for a specific clinical condition. The Core Outcome Set Initiative within the Cochrane Skin Group (CSG-COUSIN) supports the development of core outcomes in dermatology. In the second CSG-COUSIN meeting held in 2017, 11 COS development groups working on skin diseases presented their current work. The presentations and discussions identified the following overarching methodological challenges for COS development in dermatology: it is not always easy to define the disease focus of a COS; the optimal method for outcome domain identification and level of detail needed to specify such domains is challenging to many; decision rules within Delphi surveys need to be improved; appropriate ways of patient involvement are not always clear. In addition, there appear to be outcome domains that may be relevant as potential core outcome domains for the majority of skin diseases. The close collaboration between methodologists in the Core Outcome Set Initiative and the international Cochrane Skin Group has major advantages for trialists, systematic reviewers and COS developers.

Evidence-based (S3) guideline for the treatment of androgenetic alopecia in women and in men - short version.

Androgenetic alopecia is the most common hair loss disorder, affecting both men and women. Initial signs of androgenetic alopecia usually develop during teenage years leading to progressive hair loss with a pattern distribution. Moreover, its frequency increases with age and affects up to 80% Caucasian men and 42% of women. Patients afflicted with androgenetic alopecia may undergo significant impairment of quality of life. The European Dermatology Forum (EDF) initiated a project to develop evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of androgenetic alopecia. Based on a systematic literature research the efficacy of the currently available therapeutic options was assessed and therapeutic recommendations were passed in a consensus conference. The purpose of the guideline is to provide dermatologists with an evidence-based tool for choosing an efficacious and safe therapy for patients with androgenetic alopecia.