US FDA Advisory Panel Members' Assessment of Premarket Approval Process and Suggestions for Improvement.

Importance: The manufacturing and marketing of medical devices is regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the FDA premarket approval (PMA) process evaluates the safety and effectiveness of medical devices. The PMA process includes a detailed scientific, regulatory and quality system review and is critical to ensure that novel devices are safe, effective, and meet the needs of patients. Objective: To survey current voting members serving on panels of the FDA's Medical Devices Advisory Committee to better characterize panel decision-making and identify steps for improvement. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative survey study included 36 questions that were mailed to FDA device panelists regarding their opinions on the influence of sources of information, pivotal trial design, quality of evidence, panel composition and internal deliberative process, time allocation, and impartiality of the FDA. The survey was mailed to the members of all 18 FDA device panels in January and February 2017. Data were collected from January to May 2017 and analyzed from 2018 to 2019. Exposures: Respondents read and returned the aforementioned paper survey, while nonrespondents did not. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes included panel members' perceptions, and their implications for process improvement. χ2 or Fisher exact tests were used to test differences between subgroups. Results: Of 64 of 92 panel members who responded (69.6%), 38 of 64 (59.4%) were male, 3 of 63 (4.8%) were Black respondents, 46 of 63 (73.0%) were White respondents, and 36 of 60 (60.0%) were in academic practice. The mean (range) panel service was 6.8 (1-22) years with 3.9 (1-19) meetings attended. Overall, respondents considered information presented by the FDA unbiased, and 28 of 61 (45.9%) believed that pivotal trials were frequently well-designed, 55 of 62 respondents (88.7%) suggested FDA consult panel members preemptively regarding trial design and 54 of 64 (84.4%) regarding the device label. Most indicated that prior FDA approval of another device serving the same medical purpose (43 of 62 [69.4%]) or approval in other countries with comparable regulatory regimes, such as Canada and Europe (39 of 62 [62.9%]), would make them more likely to recommend approval. Respondents rated written information (50 of 60 [83.3%]), live presentations (43 of 58 [74.1%]), and prior professional knowledge (41 of 60 [68.3%]) as the most important sources of information in deciding whether to recommend approval. Additionally, 52 of 58 respondents (89.7%) recommended that a panel member-only executive session would allow more clarity and honesty in deliberations, and 33 of 59 (55.9%) believed a three-fourths majority appropriate for recommending approval, which would be a deviation from the current system in which an overall vote is reported without designation of a vote threshold. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of FDA device panel members, respondents wanted improved study designs, more relevant clinical data, including from other countries, involvement of panelists in study design and device label development, and inclusion of an executive session. Demographically, panels could be made more diverse.

Oral smoothened inhibitors for Gorlin syndrome: A clinical review.

Although smoothened inhibitors (SMOi) have demonstrated efficacy in the management of basal cell carcinoma, no guidelines are available on how to utilize SMOi in the treatment of Gorlin syndrome (GS). This review's objective is to assess the clinical response to SMOi in GS, provide practical guidance for clinicians, and identify areas for future research. Through comprehensive searches of previous publications and expert opinion, this review demonstrates that intermittent dosing of SMOi and daily dosing have similar efficacy. While the adverse events of SMOi may result in their discontinuation during treatment of GS, intermittent dosing may improve compliance.

Subcision with and without suction for acne scars: a split-faced, rater-blinded randomized control trial.

Therapeutic options for acne scars include subcision and suction with microdermabrasion, but these treatment modalities have not been studied in conjunction. To compare effectiveness of subcision alone versus subcision with suction for the treatment of facial acne scars. Randomized, split-faced, evaluator-blinded control trial. Participants underwent one subcision treatment on both sides of the face followed by 10 sessions of suction to one side. Photographs at baseline, 1-month, and 4-months were assessed. Primary outcome measures were the validated Acne Scar Severity Scale (ASSS) (0 = no acne scarring, 4 = severe), Acne Scar Improvement Grading Scale (ASIGS) (-100 to 100%), and modified Quantitative Global Scarring Grades (QGSG) (point-based questionnaire instrument), as well as subject preference. Twenty-eight treatment areas and 154 treatments were analyzed. Dermatologist raters found no differences between subcision alone and subcision-suction at 1-month or 4-months. Mean subject-assessed percent improvement for subcision-suction was higher than that for subcision alone at 1-month (37% versus 24%, p = 0.04) but not at 4-months (p = 0.37). Subjects preferred combination therapy to monotherapy at 1-month (50% vs. 21%) and 4-months (43% vs. 21%). While blinded raters did not detect significant differences, subjects perceived combination treatment as working more quickly than monotherapy, and preferred combination treatment at all time points.Clinical trial registration NCT01696513 on Clinicaltrials.gov.

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.

Protocol of a scoping review of outcome domains in dermatology.

INTRODUCTION: Core outcome sets (COSs) are agreed outcomes (domains (subdomains) and instruments) that should be measured as a minimum in clinical trials or practice in certain diseases or clinical fields. Worldwide, the number of COSs is increasing and there might be conceptual overlaps of domains (subdomains) and instruments within disciplines. The aim of this scoping review is to map and to classify all outcomes identified with COS projects relating to skin diseases. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a scoping review of outcomes of skin disease-related COS initiatives to identify all concepts and their definitions. We will search PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library. The search dates will be 1 January 2010 (the point at which Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) was established) to 1 January 2024. We will also review the COMET database and C3 website to identify parts of COSs (domains and/or instruments) that are being developed and published. This review will be supplemented by querying relevant stakeholders from COS organisations, dermatology organisations and patient organisations for additional COSs that were developed. The resulting long lists of outcomes will then be mapped into conceptually similar concepts. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was supported by departmental research funds from the Department of Dermatology at Northwestern University. An ethics committee review was waived since this protocol was done by staff researchers with no involvement of patient care. Conflicts of interests, if any, will be addressed by replacing participants with relevant conflicts or reassigning them. The results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals, social media posts and promotion by COS organisations.

Acquired ichthyosis: a clinical review.

Acquired ichthyosis (AI) is a rare, nonhereditary cutaneous disorder that has been associated with numerous neoplastic, infectious, drugs, endocrine, metabolic, autoimmune, and malabsorptive diseases. Review all demographical, clinical, histological, and therapeutic features of AI and focus on all reported associated diseases. We performed a systematic literature review in Pubmed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane collaboration databases, searching for all articles on AI, with no limits on publication date, participant age, sex or nationality. Eighty-four articles were included. Total number of included patients was 167 patients with a mean age at presentation of 39 years [range 0.5-85] and a sex ratio M:F of 5:2. The most common malignancy associated with AI is Hodgkin's lymphoma. AI occurred before, simultaneously or after the onset of malignancy or systemic disease. The severity of AI depends on the severity of the underlying disorder and regresses once the disease goes into remission and may also be a marker of disease recurrence or relapse. 8% have been reported to be drug related and all occurred weeks to months after drug intake and resolved after stopping or decreasing the dose of the drug. Data were derived from case reports and observational studies. Limitations include the accuracy of published data, potential patient selection, and reporting bias. AI can be associated with numerous systemic diseases and drugs. Physicians should be particularly alert to these associations to provide adequate screening and management of patients with AI.