Validation of the Investigator Global Assessment of Chronic Hand Eczema (IGA-CHE): a new clinician reported outcome measure of CHE severity.

The Investigator Global Assessment of Chronic Hand Eczema (IGA-CHE) is a novel Clinician-Reported Outcome measure that allows investigators to assess cross-sectional CHE global disease severity using clinical characteristics of erythema, scaling, lichenification/hyperkeratosis, vesiculation, oedema, and fissures as guidelines for overall severity assessment. This study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the IGA-CHE for use as an outcome measure in CHE clinical trials and clinical practice. Psychometric analyses were performed using data from a sample of 280 patients with moderate to severe CHE from a phase 3 trial of delgocitinib cream, pooled across treatment groups. Test-retest reliability results were moderate to strong with kappa coefficients ranging from 0.63 to 0.76. Correlations with measures assessing related concepts were moderate or strong (range 0.65-0.72) and exceeded a priori hypotheses, providing evidence of convergent validity. Known-groups validity was supported by statistically significant differences between severity groups (< 0.001). Within-group effect sizes were consistently larger for improved groups compared to stable groups, providing evidence of ability to detect change. Anchor-based analyses generated within-subject meaningful change estimates ranging from - 0.8 to - 2.3. A correlation weighted average suggested a single value of - 1.7 in change from baseline. These findings provide evidence the IGA-CHE scale has strong reliability, construct validity, and ability to detect change, supporting its use as an endpoint in CHE clinical trials and clinical practice. Based on the evidence, 2-level changes in IGA-CHE score are considered a conservative meaningful change threshold; however, findings also indicate 1-level change in IGA-CHE scores reflects a clinically meaningful improvement for patients.Clinical trial registration: NCT04871711.

Psychometric validation of the Psoriasis Symptom Scale, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue and pain-Visual Analogue Scale in patients with generalized pustular psoriasis.

BACKGROUND: Generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) is a rare, chronic, inflammatory skin disease associated with considerable patient burden. The Psoriasis Symptom Scale (PSS), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue) and pain-Visual Analogue Scale (pain-VAS) are patient-reported outcomes (PROs) that have not yet been validated in patients with GPP. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the psychometric properties of the PSS, FACIT-Fatigue and pain-VAS using data from Effisayil 1, a randomised trial of spesolimab in patients with moderate-to-severe GPP. METHODS: Inter-item correlations and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were performed using Week 1 data. Internal consistency was assessed with Cronbach's α coefficient using baseline and Week 1 data. Test-retest reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs); change data for the GPP Physician Global Assessment total score and pustulation subscore were used to define a stable population. Convergent validity was assessed at baseline and Week 1 using Spearman's rank-order correlations. Known-groups validity was measured by analysis of variance using Week 1 data. Ability to detect change from baseline to Week 1 was evaluated by analysis of covariance. RESULTS: Inter-item and item-to-total correlations were moderate or strong for most PSS and FACIT-Fatigue items. CFA demonstrated the unidimensionality of the PSS and FACIT-Fatigue, with high factor loadings for most items (PSS range, 0.75-0.94; FACIT-Fatigue range, 0.11-0.93) and acceptable fit statistics. Both scores demonstrated internal consistency (Cronbach's α, 0.71 and 0.95, respectively). The PSS, FACIT-Fatigue and pain-VAS demonstrated test-retest reliability (ICCs ≥0.70) and good evidence of convergent validity. Furthermore, the PROs could differentiate between known groups of varying symptom severity (range, p < 0.0001-0.0225) and detect changes in symptom severity from baseline to Week 1 (range, p < 0.0001-0.0002). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, these results support the reliability, validity and ability to detect change of the PSS, FACIT-Fatigue and pain-VAS as PROs in patients with GPP.

Eligibility Criteria for Active Ulcerative Pyoderma Gangrenosum in Clinical Trials: A Delphi Consensus on Behalf of the UPGRADE (Understanding Pyoderma Gangrenosum: Review and Assessment of Disease Effects) Group.

At present, there are no standardized guidelines for determining patient eligibility for pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) clinical trials. Thus, we aim to determine which clinical features, histopathological features, or laboratory features should be included in active ulcerative PG clinical trial eligibility criteria for treatment-naïve patients and patients already treated with immunomodulating medications (treatment-exposed patients). This study employed 4 rounds of the Delphi technique. Electronic surveys were administered to 21 international board-certified dermatologists and plastic surgeon PG experts (June 2022-December 2022). Our results demonstrated that for a patient to be eligible for a PG trial, they must meet the following criteria: (i) presence of ulcer(s) with erythematous/violaceous undermining wound borders, (ii) presence of a painful or tender ulcer, (iii) history/presence of rapidly progressing disease, (iv) exclusion of infection and other causes of cutaneous ulceration, (v) biopsy for H&E staining, and (vi) a presence/history of pathergy. These criteria vary in importance for treatment-naïve versus treatment-exposed patients. Given the international cohort, we were unable to facilitate live discussions between rounds. This Delphi consensus study provides a set of specific, standardized eligibility criteria for PG clinical trials, thus addressing one of the main issues hampering progress toward Food and Drug Administration approval of medications for PG.

Baseline Characteristics of Canadian Patients in the Psoriasis Longitudinal Assessment and Registry (PSOLAR).

BACKGROUND: The Psoriasis Longitudinal Assessment and Registry (PSOLAR) is a global, prospective, longitudinal, disease-based registry. It serves as a post-marketing safety commitment with a focus on patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for systemic therapy. OBJECTIVES: To describe the baseline disease demographics and clinical characteristics of a Canadian subgroup of participants enrolled in PSOLAR. METHODS: Baseline demographic/disease characteristics, medical histories, and previous psoriasis treatments for Canadian patients in PSOLAR were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: There were 1896 patients analyzed in the Canadian subgroup at 37 clinical sites, accounting for 15.7% of the global PSOLAR population. Baseline disease and clinical characteristics were as expected for a moderate to severe psoriasis population and were generally similar to the global PSOLAR population. Two distinctions were noted in the Canadian subgroup versus those enrolled globally: a higher proportion of patients were overweight/obese (84.7% vs. 80.4%) and male (61.4% vs. 54.7%). In addition, the Canadian subgroup had numerically higher historical peak disease activity (PGA score 3.35 vs. 3.1) and longer disease duration (22.3 years vs. 17.5 years). Canadian PSOLAR patients reported a variety of comorbidities, including psoriatic arthritis (31.5%), hypertension (34.6%), hyperlipidemia (24.3%), mental illness (24.1%), and inflammatory bowel disease (1.6%). CONCLUSION: The Canadian subgroup of PSOLAR patients was generally similar to those enrolled globally with respect to baseline disease demographics and clinical characteristics. Multiple comorbidities are noted in the Canadian subgroup, underscoring the need for a holistic approach to the treatment of psoriatic patients.

Psychometric validation of the generalized pustular psoriasis physician global assessment (GPPGA) and generalized pustular psoriasis area and severity index (GPPASI).

BACKGROUND: Generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) is a rare and life-threatening skin disease often accompanied by systemic inflammation. There are currently no standardized or validated GPP-specific measures for assessing severity. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reliability, validity and responder definitions of the Generalized Pustular Psoriasis Physician Global Assessment (GPPGA) and Generalized Pustular Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (GPPASI). METHODS: The GPPGA and GPPASI were validated using outcome data from Week 1 of the Effisayil™ 1 study. The psychometric analyses performed included confirmatory factor analysis, item-to-item/item-to-total correlations, internal consistency reliability, test-retest reliability, convergent validity, known-groups validity, responsiveness analysis and responder definition analysis. RESULTS: Using data from this patient cohort (N = 53), confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated unidimensionality of the GPPGA total score (root mean square error of approximation <0.08), and GPPGA item-to-item and item-to-total correlations ranged from 0.58 to 0.90. The GPPGA total score, pustulation subscore and GPPASI total score all demonstrated good test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.70, 0.91 and 0.95 respectively), and good evidence of convergent validity. In anchor-based analyses, all three scores were able to detect changes in symptom and disease severity over time; reductions of -1.4, -2.2 and - 12.0 were suggested as clinically meaningful improvement thresholds for the GPPGA total score, GPPGA pustulation subscore and GPPASI total score respectively. Anchor-based analyses also supported the GPPASI 50 as a clinically meaningful threshold for improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our findings indicate that the GPPGA and GPPASI are valid, reliable and responsive measures for the assessment of GPP disease severity, and support their use in informing clinical endpoints in trials in GPP.

The Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD™): a clinical outcome measure for the severity of atopic dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: The validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD™) is a standardized severity assessment for use in clinical trials and registries for atopic dermatitis (AD). OBJECTIVES: To investigate the reliability, validity, responsiveness and within-patient meaningful change of the vIGA-AD. METHODS: Data were analysed from adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD in the BREEZE-AD1 (N = 624 patients; NCT03334396), BREEZE-AD2 (N = 615; NCT03334422) and BREEZE-AD5 (N = 440; NCT03435081) phase III baricitinib clinical studies. RESULTS: Across studies, test-retest reliability for stable patients showed moderate-to-good agreement [range of Kappa values for Patient Global Impression of Severity-Atopic Dermatitis (PGI-S-AD), 0·516-0·639; for Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), 0·658-0·778]. Moderate-to-large correlations between vIGA-AD and EASI or body surface area (range at baseline, 0·497-0·736; Week 16, 0·716-0·893) supported convergent validity. Known-groups validity was demonstrated vs. EASI and PGI-S-AD (vIGA-AD for severe vs. moderate EASI categories at baseline, P < 0·001). Responsiveness was demonstrated vs. EASI (P < 0·001 for much improved vs. improved and improved vs. stable). Anchor- and distribution-based methods supported a vIGA-AD change of -1·0 as clinically meaningful. These findings are limited to populations defined by the studies' inclusion and exclusion criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The vIGA-AD demonstrated sufficient reliability, validity, responsiveness and interpretation standards for use in clinical trials. What is already known about this topic? A description of the development of the validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD™) has been published previously. What does this study add? The current study validates the vIGA-AD by demonstrating appropriate test-retest reliability, convergent validity, known-groups validity and responsiveness across three baricitinib clinical studies. In addition, a 1-point change was identified as a clinically meaningful patient-perceived change minimal clinically important difference in the vIGA-AD. What are the clinical implications of the work? The vIGA-AD is a measure for investigator assessment of atopic dermatitis suitable for use in clinical research.

The Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD): The development and reliability testing of a novel clinical outcome measurement instrument for the severity of atopic dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: An Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) is recommended by health agencies for drug registration in atopic dermatitis (AD). Current IGA scales lack standardization. OBJECTIVES: To develop an IGA scale, training module, and clinical certification examination for use in AD trials; establish content validity; and assess reliability. METHODS: Expert dermatologists participated in the development of the validated IGA for AD (vIGA-ADTM). Reliability (interrater and intrarater) was assessed by 2 web-based surveys. Clinical certification for investigators consisted of a training module and examination. RESULTS: Expert consensus was achieved around a 5-point IGA scale including morphologic descriptions, and content validity was established. Survey 1 showed strong interrater reliability (Kendall's coefficient of concordance W [Kendall's W], 0.809; intraclass correlation [ICC], 0.817) and excellent agreement (weighted kappa, 0.857). Survey 2, completed 5 months after training of dermatologists, showed improvements in scale reliability (Kendall's W, 0.819; ICC, 0.852; weighted kappa, 0.889). In this study, 627 investigators completed vIGA-AD training and certification. LIMITATIONS: Ratings were assessed on photographs. CONCLUSION: A validated IGA scale and training module were developed with the intent of harmonizing assessment of disease severity in AD trials. Strong reliability and excellent agreement between assessments were observed.

Approach to the Assessment and Management of Adult Patients With Atopic Dermatitis: A Consensus Document.

BACKGROUND:: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, relapsing, and remitting inflammatory skin disease with complex pathophysiology, primarily driven by type 2 inflammation. Existing guidelines often do not reflect all current therapeutic options and guidance on the practical management of patients with AD is lacking. OBJECTIVES:: To develop practical, up-to-date guidance on the assessment and management of adult patients with AD. METHODS:: An expert panel of 17 Canadian experts, including 16 dermatologists and 1 allergist, with extensive clinical experience managing moderate-to-severe AD reviewed the available literature from the past 5 years using a defined list of key search terms. This literature, along with clinical expertise and opinion, was used to draft concise, clinically relevant reviews of the current literature. Based on these reviews, experts developed and voted on recommendations and statements to reflect the practical management of adult patients with AD as a guide for health care providers in Canada and across the globe, using a prespecified agreement cutoff of 75%. RESULTS:: Eleven consensus statements were approved by the expert panel and reflected 4 key domains: pathophysiology, assessment, comorbidities, and treatment. CONCLUSIONS:: These statements aim to provide a framework for the assessment and management of adult patients with AD and to guide health care providers in practically relevant aspects of patient management.

Approach to the Assessment and Management of Adult Patients With Atopic Dermatitis: A Consensus Document. Section II: Tools for Assessing the Severity of Atopic Dermatitis.

Clinicians rely on clinical measures to define the severity of atopic dermatitis and assess outcomes of therapy. These measures can be objective (ie, physician assessments of disease severity) or subjective (ie, patient-reported symptoms and quality of life outcomes). In this review, the most commonly used tools for assessing atopic dermatitis severity in adult patients are presented and compared. These include Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI); SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD); Physician Global Assessment (PGA); body surface area (BSA); Atopic Dermatitis Severity Index (ADSI); Six Area, Six Sign Atopic Dermatitis (SASSAD); Patient Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM); Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI); and pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). Available severity strata for the tools are summarized, although the use of severity strata in clinical practice is not recommended. Since both objective and subjective assessments of disease severity are important to assess, consideration of clinical characteristics such as disease recurrence or persistence, as well as location of the affected areas, should be considered in the overall judgement of disease severity and consideration of therapy choice.

Approach to the Assessment and Management of Adult Patients With Atopic Dermatitis: A Consensus Document. Section V: Consensus Statements on the Assessment and Management of Adult Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis.

This document is a concise, current, and practical guide for dermatologists and other health care providers managing adult patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). The recommendations made here are based on a consensus of specialists with extensive experience managing patients with AD. Topics reviewed in this publication include AD pathophysiology, assessment, comorbidities, and treatment options.

The Static Physician's Global Assessment of Genitalia: A Clinical Outcome Measure for the Severity of Genital Psoriasis.

Introduction: Genital psoriasis is a common but frequently overlooked manifestation of psoriasis with a considerable impact on patients' quality of life. Currently no validated clinical trial outcome measures exist to assess genital psoriasis severity that meet regulatory agency requirements. Methods: This study describes the development of the static Physician's Global Assessment of Genitalia (sPGA-G) scale, a clinical outcome measure for the assessment of genital psoriasis severity that accounts for the erythematous clinical presentation of genital psoriasis. The reliability of the sPGA-G was evaluated using scores collected from clinician assessments of photographs of genital psoriasis cases. Scores were collected from 10 academic and clinical experts in genital psoriasis and 95 clinician assessors who participated in either in-person (n=28) or online (n=67) sPGA-G training modules. Results: The sPGA-G had a high inter-rater reliability (IRR, measured by Kendall's W) for expert raters (W=0.856, P less than 0.0001), in-person assessors (W=0.822, P less than 0.0001), and online assessors (W=0.678, P less than 0.0001). IRR was also high for all clinical assessors combined, (W=0.714, P less than 0.0001). Discussion: This study demonstrates that the sPGA-G is an intuitive and reliable clinical outcome measure that specifically measures the severity of genital psoriasis. J Drugs Dermatol. 2017;16(8):793-799.

Comparative effectiveness of biologic agents for the treatment of psoriasis in a real-world setting: Results from a large, prospective, observational study (Psoriasis Longitudinal Assessment and Registry [PSOLAR]).

BACKGROUND: Comparing effectiveness of biologics in real-world settings will help inform treatment decisions. OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare therapeutic responses among patients initiating infliximab, adalimumab, or etanercept versus ustekinumab during the Psoriasis Longitudinal Assessment and Registry (PSOLAR). METHODS: Proportions of patients achieving a Physician Global Assessment score of clear (0)/minimal (1) and mean decrease in percentage of body surface area with psoriasis were evaluated at 6 and 12 months. Adjusted logistic regression (Physician Global Assessment score 0/1) and analysis of covariance (percentage of body surface area with psoriasis) were performed to determine treatment factors associated with effectiveness. RESULTS: Of 2541 new users on registry, 2076 had efficacy data: ustekinumab (n = 1041), infliximab (n = 116), adalimumab (n = 662), and etanercept (n = 257). Patients receiving tumor necrosis factor-alpha(-α) inhibitors were significantly less likely to achieve Physician Global Assessment score 0/1 versus ustekinumab (infliximab [odds ratio {OR} 0.396, P < .0001], adalimumab [OR 0.686, P = .0012], etanercept [OR 0.554, P = .0003] at 6 months and infliximab [OR 0.449, P = .0040] at 12 months). Mean decrease in percentage of body surface area with psoriasis was significantly greater for ustekinumab versus adalimumab (point estimate 1.833, P = .0020) and etanercept (point estimate 3.419, P < .0001) at 6 months and versus infliximab (point estimate 3.945, P = .0005) and etanercept (point estimate 2.778, P = .0007) at 12 months. LIMITATIONS: Treatment selection bias and limited data for doing adjustments are limitations. CONCLUSIONS: In PSOLAR, effectiveness of ustekinumab was significantly better versus all 3 tumor necrosis factor-α inhibitors studied for the majority of comparisons at 6 and 12 months.

Assessment of the long-term safety and effectiveness of etanercept for the treatment of psoriasis in an adult population.

BACKGROUND: Etanercept is well tolerated and effective in moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. However, effectiveness and safety data beyond 2.5 years have not been reported. OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the effectiveness and safety profile of up to 4 years of etanercept therapy in psoriasis. METHODS: We analyzed prospective data from previous trials and open-label extensions, including 506 patients who initiated etanercept therapy in either of two phase III trials. Patients received etanercept, 25 mg twice weekly, 50 mg weekly, or 50 mg twice weekly, depending on which trial therapy was started. Dosage adjustments were allowed in open-label extensions, but no patients exceeded 50 mg twice weekly. Outcomes included change from baseline for the static Physician Global Assessment and Dermatology Life Quality Index scores. Exposure-adjusted adverse event (AE) rates were calculated. RESULTS: In all, 75.9% (95% confidence interval 67.9-84.0) and 27.8% (95% confidence interval 19.3-36.2) maintained Dermatology Life Quality Index response (≥ 5-point improvement from baseline) and static Physician Global Assessment response (clear or almost clear) at 48 months, respectively. AE and serious AE rates were 243.5 and 7.8 events per 100 patient-years, respectively. No serious AE rates exceeded 1.0 event per 100 patient-years. Overall infection and serious infection rates were 96.9 and 0.9 events per 100 patient-years, respectively. No cases of tuberculosis or lymphoma were reported. LIMITATIONS: Effectiveness data were limited to static Physician Global Assessment and Dermatology Life Quality Index scores. Analysis of AE rates was limited to available comparator databases. CONCLUSION: Etanercept demonstrated sustained effectiveness and a favorable safety profile with no cumulative toxicity for up to 4 years, representing, to our knowledge, the longest published study on etanercept use in psoriasis to date.

Socioeconomic burden of immune-mediated inflammatory diseases--focusing on work productivity and disability.

Chronic disabling conditions, such as immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID), adversely affect patients in terms of physical suffering and pain, impaired function, and diminished quality of life. These persistent relapsing diseases have a significant influence on individual employment status and work-related productivity. In addition to the significant burden on patients and their families, IMID represent a sizable burden to society due to high healthcare and non-healthcare related costs. Non-healthcare related, or indirect, costs - primarily associated with decreased work productivity, disability payments, and early retirements - are typically greater contributors than direct healthcare costs to the total costs associated with IMID. This article discusses the socioeconomic impact of several IMID, including rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, ankylosing spondylitis, and psoriasis.

Support needed to involve psoriasis patients in treatment decisions: survey of dermatologists.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the interaction between dermatologists and their patients in facilitating treatment decisions for psoriasis. PURPOSE: Our objective was to determine dermatologists' perceptions of the needs of psoriasis patients in treatment decisions. METHODS: Dermatologists were invited to complete an 18-item online survey on the treatment of psoriasis, including questions on decision-making roles, factors they considered important to patients in treatment decisions, and patients' needs for decision support. RESULTS: Seventy dermatologists completed the survey (15% response rate). The highest rated factors in decision making were access to physicians for discussion (86%) and information about the risks and benefits (80%); the latter was more frequently reported by those ≥ 50 years (p  =  .021). Treatment-specific factors of greatest importance were side-effect profile (87%) and cost (80%). Potential hindrances were patient misconceptions about disease, inadequate patient education materials, patient indecision, and inadequate physician time. CONCLUSION: Although dermatologists consider accessibility to dermatologists and information on treatment risk and benefits to be important in treatment decision making, they report time with patients and educational materials to be inadequate. LIMITATIONS: The small sample size may limit the generalizability of our findings.

Canadian hand dermatitis management guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Hand dermatitis (HD) is one of the most common skin conditions; however, it is not a homogeneous disease entity. The severity of HD may range from very mild cases to severe chronic forms, which may result in prolonged disability and, occasionally, refractory HD. Chronic hand dermatitis (CHD) is associated with a high health- economic burden and significant loss of quality of life. OBJECTIVE: Although numerous treatment options are available, the management of CHD is often difficult and unsatisfactory. There is a paucity of well-designed, randomized, controlled clinical trials in support of the efficacy of established treatment modalities. CONCLUSION: These guidelines cover the epidemiology, burden, quality of life, etiology, diagnosis, classification, and prevention of HD and provide guidance on management using an approach that is as evidence based as possible.