Quality of life assessment in core outcome sets: A position statement of the EADV Task Force on Quality of Life and Patient Oriented Outcomes.

Core outcome sets (COSs) are an agreed standardized collection of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials for a specific clinical condition. Tsekhe aim of our position paper by the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) Task Force on Quality of Life and Patient Oriented Outcomes was to identify the challenges and Patient Oriented Outcomes advantages in the development of COSs within dermatological QoL research. Twelve EADV Task Force multidisciplinary team members presented a total of 101 items (51 advantages and 50 disadvantages). All participants considered that COS are beneficial for comparison between different studies, treatments, dermatological diseases, geographical location and ethnicities. In conclusion, the EADV Task Force on Quality of Life and Patient Oriented Outcomes has recognized the primacy of advantages of COS and deliberated that the disadvantages in COS are related to development process and use of COS.

Why quality of life measurement is important in dermatology clinical practice: An expert-based opinion statement by the EADV Task Force on Quality of Life.

The aim of this study was to describe the many ways in which quality of life (QoL) measurement may potentially be advantageous in routine clinical dermatology practice. Thirteen members of the EADV Task Force on Quality of Life, eight dermatologists, three health psychologists, one epidemiologist and one pharmacoepidemiologist, independently listed all of the ways they thought this may be advantageous. A total of 108 different ways of using QoL information in clinical practice were suggested (median per participant = 8, range = 4-15), and were classified into 20 descriptive groups. These were sorted into the following five categories: inform clinical decisions, clinician-patient communication, awareness of skin disease burden, informing the consultation and clinical service administration. The wide range of potential benefits identified may not only encourage clinicians to use these measures but also highlights many areas requiring evidence to establish the true value of routine use of QoL measures.

The burden of common skin diseases assessed with the EQ5D™: a European multicentre study in 13 countries.

BACKGROUND: Generic instruments measuring health-related quality of life (HRQoL), like EQ5D™, enable comparison of skin diseases with healthy populations and nondermatological medical conditions, as well as calculation of utility data. OBJECTIVES: To measure HRQoL in patients with common skin diseases and healthy controls across Europe using the EQ5D. METHODS: This multicentre observational cross-sectional study was conducted in 13 European countries. Each dermatology clinic recruited at least 250 consecutive adult outpatients to complete questionnaires, including the EQ5D. RESULTS: There were 5369 participants (4010 patients and 1359 controls). Mean ± SD self-rated health state reported by patients was 69·9 ± 19·7; for controls it was 82·2 ± 15·5. When adjusted for confounding factors, including comorbidity, mean patient EQ visual analogue scores were 10·5 points lower than for controls (standardized ß = -0·23). Odds ratio with 95% confidence interval for impairment in all five dimensions of EQ5D adjusted for confounders was doubled for patients compared with controls. Patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), blistering conditions, leg ulcers, psoriasis and eczemas had the highest risk for reduction in HRQoL in most dimensions (2-10-fold). Data on differences of impairment by dimensions offer new insights. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the large impact skin conditions have on patients' well-being, differentiating between aspects of HRQoL. Patients with HS, blistering diseases, leg ulcers, infections and most chronic skin diseases reported reduced HRQoL compared with patients with chronic obstructive lung disease, diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease and cancers. These findings are important in the prioritization of resource allocation between medical fields and within dermatological subspecialities.

Biosimilars in Dermatology: Current Situation (Part II).

The first biosimilar version of a biologic agent used to treat psoriasis (infliximab) entered the Spanish market on February 16 of this year, and more biosimilars can be expected to follow in the coming months and years. Logically, this new situation will have economic repercussions and alter prescribing patterns among dermatologists. In this second part of the review, we will look at several somewhat contentious issues, such as the extrapolation of indications, interchangeability, and automatic substitution. We will also review the biosimilars with indications for psoriasis currently in the clinical development pipeline and assess their potential to offer comparable efficacy and safety to the reference product while contributing to the sustainability of the public health care system.

Biosimilars in Dermatology: Current Situation (Part I).

The first biosimilar version of a biologic agent used to treat psoriasis (infliximab) entered the Spanish market on February 16 of this year, and more biosimilars can be expected to follow in the coming months and years. Logically, this new situation will have economic repercussions and alter prescribing patterns among dermatologists. In this article, we review regulatory issues related to the approval of biosimilars, with a particular focus on the situation in the European Union. We will examine analytical characterization studies and special considerations for clinical trials with biosimilars, and also look at several somewhat contentious issues, such as the extrapolation of indications, interchangeability, and automatic substitution. Finally, we will review the biosimilars with indications for psoriasis currently in the clinical development pipeline and assess their potential to offer comparable efficacy and safety to the reference product while contributing to the sustainability of the public health care system.

Spanish evidence-based guidelines on the treatment of psoriasis with biologic agents, 2013. Part 1: on efficacy and choice of treatment. Spanish Psoriasis Group of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Biologic therapy is a well-established strategy for managing moderate and severe psoriasis. Nevertheless, the high cost of such therapy, the relatively short span of clinical experience with biologics, and the abundance of literature now available on these agents have made evidence-based and consensus-based clinical guidelines necessary. The ideal goal of psoriasis treatment is to achieve complete or nearly complete clearing of lesions and to maintain it over time. Failing that ideal, the goal would be to reduce involvement to localized lesions that can be controlled with topical therapy. Although current evidence allows us to directly or indirectly compare the efficacy or risk of primary or secondary failure of available biologics based on objective outcomes, clinical trial findings cannot be directly translated to routine practice. As a result, the prescribing physician must tailor the treatment regimen to the individual patient. This update of the clinical practice guidelines issued by the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (AEDV) on biologic therapy for psoriasis incorporates information from the most recent publications on this topic.