Measurement of the major ignored burden of multiple myeloma, pernicious anaemia and of other haematological conditions on partners and family members: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Having a haematological condition can adversely affect the quality of life (QoL) of family members/partners of patients. It is important to measure this often ignored burden in order to implement appropriate supportive interventions. OBJECTIVE: To measure current impact of haematological conditions on the QoL of family members/partners of patients, using the Family Reported Outcome Measure-16 (FROM-16). METHODS: A cross-sectional study, recruited online through patient support groups, involved UK family members/partners of people with haematological conditions completing the FROM-16. RESULTS: 183 family members/partners (mean age = 60.5 years, SD = 13.2; females = 62.8%) of patients (mean age = 64.1, SD = 12.8; females = 46.4%) with 12 haematological conditions completed the FROM-16. The FROM-16 mean total score was 14.0 (SD = 7.2), meaning 'a moderate effect on QoL'. The mean FROM-16 scores of family members of people with multiple myeloma (mean = 15.8, SD = 6.3, n = 99) and other haematological malignancies (mean = 13.9, SD = 7.8, n = 29) were higher than of people with pernicious anaemia (mean = 10.7, SD = 7.5, n = 47) and other non-malignant conditions (mean = 11, SD = 7.4, n = 56, p < .01). Over one third (36.1%, n = 183) of family members experienced a 'very large effect' (FROM-16 score>16) on their quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Haematological conditions, in particular those of malignant type, impact the QoL of family members/partners of patients. Healthcare professionals can now, using FROM-16, identify those most affected and should consider how to provide appropriate holistic support within routine practice.

Mapping of Family Reported Outcome Measure (FROM-16) scores to EQ-5D: algorithm to calculate utility values.

OBJECTIVE: Although decision scientists and health economists encourage inclusion of family member/informal carer utility in health economic evaluation, there is a lack of suitable utility measures comparable to patient utility measures such those based on the EQ-5D. This study aims to predict EQ-5D-3L utility values from Family Reported Outcome Measure (FROM-16) scores, to allow the use of FROM-16 data in health economic evaluation when EQ-5D data is not available. METHODS: Data from 4228 family members/partners of patients recruited to an online cross-sectional study through 58 UK-based patient support groups, three research support platforms and Welsh social services departments were randomly divided five times into two groups, to derive and test a mapping model. Split-half cross-validation was employed, resulting in a total of ten multinomial logistic regression models. The Monte Carlo simulation procedure was used to generate predicted EQ-5D-3L responses, and utility scores were calculated and compared against observed values. Mean error and mean absolute error were calculated for all ten validation models. The final model algorithm was derived using the entire sample. RESULTS: The model was highly predictive, and its repeated fitting using multinomial logistic regression demonstrated a stable model. The mean differences between predicted and observed health utility estimates ranged from 0.005 to 0.029 across the ten modelling exercises, with an average overall difference of 0.015 (a 2.2% overestimate, not of clinical importance). CONCLUSIONS: The algorithm developed will enable researchers and decision scientists to calculate EQ-5D health utility estimates from FROM-16 scores, thus allowing the inclusion of the family impact of disease in health economic evaluation of medical interventions when EQ-5D data is not available.

The Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) used as the benchmark in validation of 101 quality-of-life instruments: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The validation of psychometric measures requires use of other established and standardized validated measures. The Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) is the most widely used tool to measure the burden of skin diseases and assess effectiveness of interventions based on patients' perspective. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to systematically analyse peer-reviewed publications describing use of the DLQI in validation of other patient-reported outcome (PRO) and quality-of-life (QoL) measures. METHODS: Seven databases were searched for papers published between January 1994 and December 2022 for articles containing data using DLQI in the validation of other PRO/QoL measures. The methodology followed PRISMA guidelines. The protocol was prospectively registered on PROSPERO. RESULTS: Of 1717 screened publications, 122 articles including 30,727 patients from 34 different countries with 41 diseases met the inclusion criteria. The DLQI was used in validation of 101 measures: 80 dermatology-specific QoL measures, mostly disease-specific, and 21 generic measures. Of these studies, 47 were cross-cultural adaptations, 116 single arm, 100 were cross-sectional, 18 longitudinal and six randomized placebo controlled. DLQI was used for 14 known group, and correlation for 10 construct, 101 convergent, 10 concurrent, 10 divergent/discriminant and three criterion validity tests using Mann-Whitney (2), Spearman's (80), Pearson's correlation (26) and Student's t-test (1). The DLQI was used in responsiveness analysis in 13 studies. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified widespread use of the DLQI in validation of other dermatology PRO/QoL measures and confirmed the central role that the DLQI plays as a benchmark in instrument development and validation across dermatology and beyond. The use of the DLQI by so many developers of other instruments has provided a common standard for comparability.

Quality of life measurement in teledermatology. Position statement of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Task Forces on Quality of Life and Patient Oriented Outcomes and Teledermatology.

Many events, including the COVID-19 pandemic, have accelerated the implementation of teledermatology pathways within dermatology departments and across healthcare organizations. Quality of Life (QoL) assessment in dermatology is also a rapidly developing field with a gradual shift from theory to practice. The purpose of this paper organized jointly by the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) Task Force (TF) on QoL and patient-oriented outcomes and the EADV TF on teledermatology is to present current knowledge about QoL assessment during the use of teledermatology approaches, including data on health-related (HR) QoL instruments used in teledermatology, comparison of influence of different treatment methods on HRQoL after face-to-face and teledermatology consultations and to make practical recommendations concerning the assessment of QoL in teledermatology. The EADV TFs made the following position statements: HRQoL assessment may be an important part in most of teledermatology activities; HRQoL assessment may be easily and effectively performed during teledermatology consultations. It is especially important to monitor HRQoL of patients with chronic skin diseases during lockdowns or in areas where it is difficult to reach a hospital for face-to-face consultation; regular assessment of HRQoL of patients with skin diseases during teledermatology consultations may help to monitor therapy efficacy and visualize individual patient's needs; we recommend the use of the DLQI in teledermatology, including the use of the DLQI app which is available in seven languages; it is important to develop apps for dermatology-specific HRQoL instruments for use in children (for example the CDLQI and InToDermQoL) and for disease-specific instruments.

Quality of life measurement in urticaria: Position statement of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Task Forces on Quality of Life and Patient-Oriented Outcomes and Urticaria and Angioedema.

The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) Task Forces on quality of life (QoL) and patient-oriented outcomes and on urticaria and angioedema recommendations for the assessment of Health-related (HR) QoL in all patients with urticaria in research and practice are as follows: to use the DLQI for adults and the CDLQI for children as dermatology-specific and the CU-Q2oL as a disease-specific HRQoL instruments in urticaria; to use generic instruments to provide comparison of data on urticaria with non-dermatologic diseases, or to compare with healthy volunteers or the general population; to select validated HRQoL instruments with appropriate age limits; to present exact numeric data for HRQoL results; correct title of any HRQoL instrument should be used, along with its correct abbreviation and the reference to its original publication, where possible. The EADV TFs discourage the use of non-validated HRQoL instruments and modified HRQoL instruments that have not undergone standard validation.

A cross-sectional study on gender differences in body dysmorphic concerns in patients with skin conditions in relation to sociodemographic, clinical and psychological variables.

BACKGROUND: Dysmorphic concern is an overconcern with an imagined or slight defect in physical appearance that can be a symptom of body dysmorphic disorder (BDD). Appearance-related concerns are frequently reported by people with dermatological conditions. However, relatively little remains known about the relationship between dysmorphic concern and other variables within persons with different skin conditions. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this multicentre, cross-sectional study was to investigate gender differences regarding dysmorphic concern and the prevalence of BDD in a large sample of patients with skin conditions, in relation to sociodemographic, clinical and psychological variables. METHODS: Participants aged ≥18 years with skin conditions were consecutively enrolled in dermatological clinics of 22 European centres. Dysmorphic concern and the possible presence of BDD were measured using the Dysmorphic Concern Questionnaire (DCQ) and compared between men and women in relation to sociodemographic, clinical and psychological variables, and separately for each skin condition. RESULTS: The DCQ questionnaire was completed by 5290 dermatological patients. In all categories, mean scores were significantly higher in women than in men. Mean DCQ scores were also higher in women for most skin conditions, with the highest effect size in vitiligo. The percentage of patients who screened positive for BDD on the DCQ was 10.5%, 7.7% of men and 12.7% of women. The prevalence of BDD positive was 6.9% in patients with mild clinical severity, 11.1% for moderate and 19.1% for severe condition. In the multivariate model in patients with mild skin condition, the presence of BDD was positively associated with stress and stigma both in men and in women. CONCLUSIONS: Dysmorphic concern and BDD were more frequent in women than in men with skin conditions. Both received and actual stigmatization might have an impact on body-related concerns, in particular in women, who may be more at risk for sociocultural reasons.

Dermatological patients with itch report more stress, stigmatization experience, anxiety and depression compared to patients without itch: Results from a European multi-centre study.

BACKGROUND: Itch as the most common symptom in dermatology has been shown to be related to psychological factors such as stress, anxiety and depression. Moreover, associations were found between perceived stigmatization and itch. However, studies investigating the differences between patients with dermatoses with and without itch regarding perceived stress, stigmatization, anxiety and depression are missing. Therefore, one of the aims of the second study of the European Society for Dermatology and Psychiatry (ESDaP study II) was to investigate these relationships in a large cohort of patients with different itchy dermatoses. RESULTS: 3399 patients with 14 different itchy dermatoses were recruited at 22 centres in 17 European countries. They filled in questionnaires to assess perceived stigmatization, stress, signs of clinically relevant anxiety or depression, itch-related quality of life, the overall health status, itch duration, frequency and intensity. The most significant association between the severity of itching and the perception of stress was observed among individuals with rosacea (correlation coefficient r = 0.314). Similarly, the strongest links between itch intensity and experiences of stigmatization, anxiety, and depression were found in patients with seborrheic dermatitis (correlation coefficients r = 0.317, r = 0.356, and r = 0.400, respectively). Utilizing a stepwise linear regression analysis, it was determined that within the entire patient cohort, 9.3% of the variation in itch intensity could be accounted for by factors including gender, levels of anxiety, depression, and perceived stigmatization. Females and individuals with elevated anxiety, depression, and perceived stigmatization scores reported more pronounced itch intensities compared to those with contrary attributes. CONCLUSION: This study underscores the connection between experiencing itch and its intensity and the psychological strain it places on individuals. Consequently, psychological interventions should encompass both addressing the itch itself and the interconnected psychological factors. In specific cases, it becomes imperative for dermatologists to direct individuals towards suitable healthcare resources to undergo further psychological assessment.

Quality of life measurement in rosacea. Position statement of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Task Forces on Quality of Life and Patient Oriented Outcomes and Acne, Rosacea and Hidradenitis Suppurativa.

The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) Task Forces (TFs) on Quality of Life (QoL) and Patient-Oriented Outcomes and Acne, Rosacea and Hidradenitis Suppurativa (ARHS) do not recommend the use of any generic instrument as a single method of Health Related (HR) QoL assessment in rosacea, except when comparing quimp (quality of life impairment) in rosacea patients with that in other non-dermatologic skin diseases and/or healthy controls. The EADV TFs on QoL and Patient-Oriented Outcomes and ARHS recommend the use of the dermatology-specific HRQoL instrument the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and the rosacea-specific HRQoL instrument RosaQoL in rosacea patients. The DLQI minimal clinically important difference may be used as a marker of clinical efficacy of the treatment and DLQI score banding of 0 or 1 corresponding to no effect on patients' HRQoL could be an important treatment goal. This information may be added to consensuses and guidelines for rosacea.

Clinical experience and psychometric properties of the Cardiff Acne Disability Index (CADI).

The Cardiff Acne Disability Index (CADI) is a questionnaire designed to measure the quality of life of teenagers and young adults with acne. It has been used clinically and within therapeutic research globally. This review aims to appraise all published data regarding the clinical and research experience of the CADI, its psychometric properties and validation, from its publication in 1992 until September 2020, in a single reference source. A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE via Ovid, PubMed, EBSCOhost, Web of Science and Scopus. All full articles in the English language were included. A total of 96 clinical studies were identified and analysed. The CADI has been used in 44 different countries, including four multinational studies, and has validated translations in 25 languages. Overall, 29 therapeutic interventions have used the CADI, demonstrating its responsiveness to change. The reliability of the CADI has been assessed in 14 studies through test-retest and internal consistency studies. In total, 57 studies have demonstrated aspects of its validity through correlation to other measures, and five studies have investigated the dimensionality of the CADI. There is evidence of high internal consistency, test-retest reliability, responsiveness to change and significant correlation with other objective measures. The minimal clinically important difference and validated score meaning bands have not yet been reported. This information is needed to improve the interpretability of CADI scores for clinical use and in research. The authors of the CADI have also rephrased Question 2 of the measure to ensure inclusivity.

Topical preparations for the treatment of mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Acne is very common and can have a substantial impact on wellbeing. Guidelines suggest first-line management with topical treatments, but there is little evidence regarding which treatments are most effective. OBJECTIVES: To identify the most effective and best tolerated topical treatments for acne using network meta-analysis. METHODS: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and World Health Organization Trials Registry were searched from inception to June 2020 for randomized trials that included participants with mild/moderate acne. Primary outcomes were self-reported improvement in acne, and trial withdrawal. Secondary outcomes included change in lesion counts, Investigator's Global Assessment, change in quality of life and total number of adverse events. Network meta-analysis was undertaken using a frequentist approach. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and confidence in evidence was assessed using CINeMA. RESULTS: A total of 81 papers were included, reporting 40 trials with a total of 18 089 participants. Patient Global Assessment of Improvement was reported in 11 trials. Based on the pooled network estimates, compared with vehicle, benzoyl peroxide (BPO) was effective (35% vs. 26%) for improving self-reported acne. The combinations of BPO with adapalene (54% vs. 35%) or with clindamycin (49% vs. 35%) were ranked more effective than BPO alone. The withdrawal of participants from the trial was reported in 35 trials. The number of patients withdrawing owing to adverse events was low for all treatments. Rates of withdrawal were slightly higher for BPO with adapalene (2·5%) or clindamycin (2·7%) than BPO (1·6%) or adapalene alone (1·0%). Overall confidence in the evidence was low. CONCLUSIONS: Adapalene in combination with BPO may be the most effective treatment for acne but with a slightly higher incidence of withdrawal than monotherapy. Inconsistent reporting of trial results precluded firmer conclusions.

Family reported outcomes, an unmet need in the management of a patient's disease: appraisal of the literature.

BACKGROUND: A person's chronic health condition or disability can have a huge impact on the quality of life (QoL) of the whole family, but this important impact is often ignored. This literature review aims to understand the impact of patients' disease on family members across all medical specialities, and appraise existing generic and disease-specific family quality of life (QoL) measures. METHODS: The databases Medline, EMBASE, CINHAL, ASSIA, PsycINFO and Scopus were searched for original articles in English measuring the impact of health conditions on patients' family members/partner using a valid instrument. RESULTS: Of 114 articles screened, 86 met the inclusion criteria. They explored the impact of a relative's disease on 14,661 family members, mostly 'parents' or 'mothers', using 50 different instruments across 18 specialities including neurology, oncology and dermatology, in 33 countries including the USA, China and Australia. These studies revealed a huge impact of patients' illness on family members. An appraisal of family QoL instruments identified 48 instruments, 42 disease/speciality specific and six generic measures. Five of the six generics are aimed at carers of children, people with disability or restricted to chronic disease. The only generic instrument that measures the impact of any condition on family members across all specialities is the Family Reported Outcome Measure (FROM-16). Although most instruments demonstrated good reliability and validity, only 11 reported responsiveness and only one reported the minimal clinically important difference. CONCLUSIONS: Family members' QoL is greatly impacted by a relative's condition. To support family members, there is a need for a generic tool that offers flexibility and brevity for use in clinical settings across all areas of medicine. FROM-16 could be the tool of choice, provided its robustness is demonstrated with further validation of its psychometric properties.

Methods to improve quality of life, beyond medicines. Position statement of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Task Force on Quality of Life and Patient Oriented Outcomes.

The pharmaceutical approach to skin disease has been hugely successful, but despite effective drugs being available and used, there are still vast numbers of people who continue to have some level of persisting skin disease and continue to experience quality of life (QoL) impairment. So the question that needs to be answered, while we await further advances in our drug-based armamentarium, is how can we improve patients' QoL, beyond drugs? A working group was formed from members of the EADV Task Force on QoL and Patient Oriented Outcomes. Participants were asked to suggest all the ways in which they considered patients' QoL may be improved beyond medicines. Four groups of management approaches that may improve QoL in dermatology were identified: interventions within the dermatology service (hospitalization, multidisciplinary teams, patch testing and establishing relevant allergens and education), external services (corrective make-up, climatotherapy and balneotherapy), psychological (psychological intervention, cognitive therapy, hypnosis), lifestyle (lifestyle behavioural changes, religion and spirituality and music). The ultimate aim of therapy is to eradicate a disease in an individual and return the person's life to normal. But until the day comes when this has been achieved for every skin disease and for every patient there will be a need to support and assist many patients in additional non-pharmaceutical ways. These 'adjuvant' approaches receive too little attention while dermatologists and researchers strive for better pharmacological therapy. The different ways in which patients may benefit have been reviewed in our paper, but the reality is that most have a very poor evidence base. The research challenges that we have to meet are to identify those approaches that might be of value and to provide evidence for their optimal use. In the meantime, clinicians should consider the use of these approaches where QoL remains impaired despite optimal use of standard therapy.

Quality of life measurement in alopecia areata. Position statement of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Task Force on Quality of Life and Patient Oriented Outcomes.

New treatment options may lead to an increased interest in using reliable and sensitive instruments to assess health-related quality of life in people with alopecia areata (AA). The purpose of this paper is to present current knowledge about quality of life assessment in AA. The dermatology-specific Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) was the most widely reported health-related quality of life instrument used in AA. Three AA-specific (Alopecia Areata Symptom Impact Scale, Alopecia Areata Quality of Life Index and Alopecia Areata Patients' Quality of Life) and three hair disease-specific instruments (Hairdex, Scalpdex and 'hair-specific Skindex-29') were identified with a range of content and validation characteristics: there is little evidence yet of the actual use of these measures in AA. Scalpdex is the best-validated hair disease-specific instrument. Further extensive validation is needed for all of the AA-specific instruments. The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Task Force on Quality of Life and Patient Oriented Outcomes recommends the use of the dermatology-specific DLQI questionnaire, hair disease-specific Scalpdex and the alopecia areata-specific instruments the Alopecia Areata Symptom Impact Scale or Alopecia Areata Quality of Life Index, despite the limited experience of their use. We hope that new treatment methods will be able to improve both clinical signs and health-related quality of life in patients with AA. In order to assess the outcomes of trials on these new treatment methods, it would be helpful when further development and validation of AA-specific instruments is being encouraged and also conducted.

Secukinumab for patients failing previous tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitor therapy: results of a randomized open-label study (SIGNATURE).

BACKGROUND: Efficacy data on therapies for patients with psoriasis who have failed tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitor therapy is limited. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and tolerability of secukinumab, an interleukin (IL)-17A inhibitor, in patients with moderate/severe chronic plaque psoriasis with documented efficacy failure of TNF-α inhibitor therapy (SIGNATURE study). METHODS: This was a randomized, open-label, noncomparator study in 53 dermatology centres in the U.K. and Republic of Ireland. Patients were randomized 1 : 1 to receive secukinumab 300 mg or 150 mg subcutaneously every week for 4 weeks, then 4-weekly thereafter. Patients were stratified by their prior efficacy failure with TNF-α inhibitors. Only patients who started and stayed on the same dose at each time point were included for efficacy assessments. RESULTS: In total, 233 patients were analysed. The primary end point was met, with a statistically significant improvement in response rates [75% reduction in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 75)] from baseline to week 16 in both secukinumab 300 mg and 150 mg dose groups [77 of 118 patients (65·3%) and 51 of 115 patients (44·3%), respectively; P < 0·0001]. After 72 weeks, in patients starting and remaining on 300 mg, 77% (54 of 70) achieved PASI 75. Improvements in Dermatology Life Quality Index from baseline to week 16 occurred and were maintained up to 72 weeks. The safety profile was generally consistent with previous secukinumab studies, although a higher incidence of some adverse events (e.g. candida infections) was observed. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence of efficacy and safety of secukinumab for treatment of patients with psoriasis who failed prior TNF-α inhibitor therapy. This study represents a 'real-world' population, providing reassurance that secukinumab is a treatment option in this difficult-to-treat population. What's already known about this topic? Conventional systemic nonbiological and tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-α inhibitor therapies for plaque psoriasis have not fully met patients' needs. There is a lack of data to support the treatment pathways for patients with psoriasis who have inadequate responses to TNF-α inhibitor therapy. Secukinumab, a recombinant high-affinity fully human monoclonal anti-human interleukin-17A antibody of the IgG1/κ-class, has shown excellent safety and efficacy in the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis. What does this study add? This is the first study evaluating treatment with biologics after prior efficacy failure of TNF-α inhibitor therapy as defined by the U.K. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence criteria. Secukinumab is an effective treatment in this difficult-to-treat patient population. This study provides important practical information for clinicians managing psoriasis. Adverse events were consistent with the phase III programme for secukinumab, although some adverse events, e.g. candida, were increased.

Position statement of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Task Force on Quality of Life and Patient Oriented Outcomes on quality of life issues in dermatologic patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The pandemic of COVID-19 is a global challenge for health care, and dermatologists are not standing apart from trying to meet this challenge. The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) has collected recommendations from its Task Forces (TFs) related to COVID-19. The Journal of the EADV has established a COVID-19 Special Forum giving free access to related articles. The psychosocial effects of the pandemic, an increase in contact dermatitis and several other skin diseases because of stress, disinfectants and protective equipment use, especially in healthcare workers, the temporary limited access to dermatologic care, the dilemma whether or not to pause immunosuppressive therapy, and, finally, the occurrence of skin lesions in patients infected by COVID-19 all contribute to significant quality of life (QoL) impairment. Here, we present detailed recommendations of the EADV TF on QoL and patient-oriented outcomes on how to improve QoL in dermatologic patients during the COVID-19 pandemic for several different groups of patients and for the general population.

Quality of life measurement in occupational skin diseases. Position paper of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Task Forces on Quality of Life and Patient Oriented Outcomes and Occupational Skin Disease.

The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) has started the 'Healthy Skin @ Work' campaign aimed to raise awareness among the public and EU authorities on the frequency and impact of occupational skin diseases (OSDs). The EADV Task Forces (TFs) on Quality of Life and Patient Oriented Outcomes (QoL/PO) and on OSD present their mutual position statement on QoL assessment in OSDs. The EADV TFs recommend the use of the DLQI as a dermatology-specific instrument and SF-36 as a generic instrument in health-related (HR) QoL studies on OSDs. The OSD-specific questionnaire, LIOD, is not recommended for general use in its present form because of its three months recall period. The EADV TFs discourage the use of non-validated and of non-validated modifications of previously validated HRQoL instruments. The EADV TFs wish to encourage research into: the HRQoL impact of OSDs other than occupational contact dermatitis and hand eczema; comparisons between the effects of different treatments and other interventions on HRQoL in OSDs; and into the HRQoL impairment of patients with OSDs from different countries, and with different provoking factors, to predict if the results of successful therapeutic and educational interventions may be generalized across countries and between occupations.

'The psychosocial burden of alopecia areata and androgenetica': a cross-sectional multicentre study among dermatological out-patients in 13 European countries.

BACKGROUND: Hair diseases play an important burden on patients' lives, causing significant emotional and psychosocial distress. However, the impairment due to different hair conditions, such as alopecia areata (AA) and androgenetic alopecia (AGA), has rarely been compared. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the psychological burden of subgroups of patients with different hair diseases and to compare them to a healthy population. METHODS: In this study, we analysed a subgroup of patients with hair diseases from patients of a large multicentre study including 3635 dermatological patients and 1359 controls from 13 European countries. In the subgroup of patients with hair diseases, we analysed the socio-demographic characteristics, the stress level, and the impact of hair diseases on quality of life (QoL), anxiety, and depression and we compared them among patients with AA, AGA and healthy controls. RESULTS: The study population included 115 patients (77% women, 23% men) with hair diseases, 37 of whom with AA and 20 with AGA. Patients with hair diseases had a lower education level than healthy controls (medium educational level: 43% vs. 28%). Overall, 41% of the patients reported stressful life events during the last 6 months compared with 31% of the controls. Patients with the same age, sex, depression level and comorbidities had a worse QoL when suffering from AA than from AGA (Mean Dermatology Life Quality Index score: 5.8 vs. 2.5). CONCLUSION: Patients with hair diseases are more anxious, depressed and have a lower QoL than controls.

Quality of life measurement in skin cancer patients: literature review and position paper of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Task Forces on Quality of Life and Patient Oriented Outcomes, Melanoma and Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer.

The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) Task Forces (TFs) on Quality of Life (QoL) and Patient Oriented Outcomes, Melanoma and Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer (NMSC) present a review of the literature and position statement on health-related (HR) QoL assessment in skin cancer patients. A literature search was carried out to identify publications since 1980 that included information about the impact of SC on QoL. Generic, dermatology-specific, cancer-specific, SC-specific, facial SC-specific, NMSC-specific, basal cell carcinoma-specific and melanoma-specific QoL questionnaires have been used to assess HRQoL in SC patients. HRQoL was assessed in the context of creation and validation of the HRQoL instruments, clinical trials, comparison of QoL in SC and other cancers, other diseases or controls, HRQoL assessment after treatment, comorbidities, behaviour modification, predictors of QoL and survival, supportive care needs, coping strategies and fear of cancer recurrence. The most widely used instruments for HRQoL assessment in SC patients are the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Melanoma (FACT-M), Skin Cancer Index (SCI), Short Form 36 Item Health Survey (SF-36) and the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). The TFs recommend the use of the cancer-specific EORTC QLQ-C30, especially in late stages of disease, and the melanoma-specific FACT-M and SC-specific SCI questionnaires. These instruments have been well validated and used in several studies. Other HRQoL instruments, also with good basic validation, are not currently recommended because the experience of their use is too limited. Dermatology-specific HRQoL instruments can be used to assess the impact of skin-related problems in SC. The TFs encourage further studies to validate HRQoL instruments for use in different stages of SC, in order to allow more detailed practical recommendations on HRQoL assessment in SC.

The self-assessed psychological comorbidities of prurigo in European patients: a multicentre study in 13 countries.

BACKGROUND: Prurigo is defined by the presence of chronic pruritus and multiple localized or generalized pruriginous lesions. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the psychological burden of prurigo in patients of European countries. METHODS: In this multicentre European study, 3635 general dermatology outpatients and 1359 controls were included. Socio-demographic data and answers to questionnaires (regarding quality of life, general health, anxiety and depression and suicidal ideation) were collected. RESULTS: There were 27 patients with prurigo; of these, 63% were men, and the mean age was 58.6 years. Among patients with prurigo, 10 of 27 (37%) suffered from anxiety and 8 of 27 (29%) from depression. Suicidal ideation was reported in 5 of 27 (19%) patients, and for four of these five patients, suicidal ideation was related to their skin disease. These frequencies were higher in the 10 commonest dermatological diseases (including psoriasis, atopic dermatitis and leg ulcers). The impact on quality of life was severe, with a mean Dermatologic Life Quality Index (DLQI) of 12.4, with an extreme impact on quality of life for 23% of patients and a very large impact for 27% of patients. CONCLUSION: The psychological comorbidities of prurigo are common, greater than those of other skin diseases, and their impact on quality of life is significant. Thus, it is important to study this condition and to find new treatments.

Quality of life measurement in hidradenitis suppurativa: position statement of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology task forces on Quality of Life and Patient-Oriented Outcomes and Acne, Rosacea and Hidradenitis Suppurativa.

This paper is organized jointly by the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) Task Force (TF) on Quality of Life (QoL) and Patient-Oriented Outcomes and the EADV TF on acne, rosacea and hidradenitis suppurativa (ARHS). The purpose of this paper was to present current knowledge about QoL assessment in HS, including data on HS-specific health-related (HR) QoL instruments and HRQoL changes in clinical trials, and to make practical recommendations concerning the assessment of QoL in people with HS. HS results in significant quimp that is higher than in most other chronic skin diseases. HS impact in published studies was assessed predominantly (84% of studies) by the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). There is a lack of high-quality clinical trials in HS patients where HRQoL instruments have been used as outcome measures. One double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial on infliximab with low number of participants reported significantly better HRQoL improvement in the treatment group than in the placebo group. Well-designed clinical studies in HS patients to compare different treatment methods, including surgical methods and assessing long-term effects, are needed. Because of lack of sufficient validation, the Task Forces are not at present able to recommend existing HS-specific HRQoL instruments for use in clinical studies. The EADV TFs recommend the dermatology-specific DLQI questionnaire for use in HS patients. The EADV TFs encourage the further development, validation and use of other HS-specific, dermatology-specific and generic instruments but such use should be based on the principles presented in the previous publications of the EADV TF on QoL and Patient-Oriented Outcomes.