Patient Unique Stigmatization Holistic tool in dermatology (PUSH-D): Development and validation of a dermatology-specific stigmatization assessment tool.

BACKGROUND: The skin plays an important role in establishing interpersonal relationships, and thus visible skin disorders, which have a significant impact on physical appearance, influence other people's behaviours and attitudes. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a dermatologic-specific questionnaire to evaluate stigmatization in individuals with visible skin conditions. METHODS: Items were generated by a verbatim report based on qualitative interviews with patients with various dermatologic conditions. Subsequently, a study was implemented for psychometric analysis. A dermatology-specific stigmatization questionnaire (PUSH-D) was refined via item reduction according to inter-question correlations, consensus among experts and exploratory factor analysis. Internal consistency was determined by calculating Cronbach's α. Concurrent validity was determined by calculating the correlation between PUSH-D and the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES). RESULTS: From a primary list of 22 items, PUSH-D was reduced to a 17-item questionnaire, covering two pertinent dimensions based on the exploratory factor analysis. Construct validity was demonstrated, and PUSH-D showed good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.9). PUSH-D correlated strongly with the DLQI 0.72 (p < 0.001) and moderately with the RSES 0.49 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: PUSH-D allows a comprehensive view of the degree of stigmatization in visible skin disorders, as well as the comparability of stigmatization levels across various skin conditions.

First-Line Biologic Therapy and Obesity in Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis: Results from the Prospective Multicenter Cohort Psobioteq.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is associated with an increased risk of psoriasis. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we examined whether body mass index (BMI) is taken into account when choosing first-line biologic therapy for psoriasis. METHODS: In this cohort study, we compared obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) and non-obese patients for the first-line biologic therapy prescribed, its survival, reasons for discontinuation, therapy optimization, co-prescription of methotrexate and factors associated with long drug survival. RESULTS: A total of 931 patients were included: 594 (64%) were male, median age was 46 years (interquartile range 36-56). The most-prescribed biologic agents as first-line treatment were adalimumab (ADA; 42.7%), ustekinumab (UST; 29.9%) and etanercept (ETA; 22.9%); only frequency of infliximab (IFX) prescription differed between groups. Drug survival was significantly shorter for obese than non-obese patients (p < 2.10-4) and was worse for obese than non-obese patients for UST (p = 0.009) and ETA (p = 0.02), with no difference for ADA (p = 0.11). The main reason for discontinuation was primary inefficacy (62%), which was more frequent in obese than non-obese patients. The cumulative incidence of optimization did not significantly differ between the groups, except for ADA (SHR 1.91, 95% CI [1.23-2.96], p = 0.005). On multivariate analysis, risk of discontinuation was associated with only ETA as first-line biologic therapy (HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.04-2.19). CONCLUSION: This study highlighted the lack of difference in prescription of first-line biologic treatment, except for IFX, between obese and non-obese patients presenting moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Drug survival in obese patients is shorter, mainly because of inefficacy, than in non-obese patients. This highlights the need for targeted pharmacological studies in obese individuals to find optimal administration schemes.

Effectiveness and safety of dupilumab for the treatment of atopic dermatitis in a real-life French multicenter adult cohort.

BACKGROUND: Dupilumab is the first biologic available to treat atopic dermatitis (AD). Its effectiveness and safety were demonstrated in clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the effectiveness and safety of dupilumab in adults with AD in a real-life French multicenter retrospective cohort. METHODS: We included patients treated during March 2017-April 2018. Efficacy outcomes, including Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) and Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) scores, were collected at baseline and 3 months when available. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded at follow-up. RESULTS: We included 241 patients. The median ± interquartile range (IQR) follow-up time was 3.8 ± 3.7 months. A ≥75% improvement in SCORAD was achieved in 27 of 163 (16.6%) patients, and a ≥75% improvement in EASI was achieved in 40 of 82 (48.8%) patients. The median SCORAD and EASI scores at 3 months were significantly lower than those at baseline (SCORAD ± IQR, 25 ± 21 vs 56 ± 27.4, P < 10-9 and EASI ± IQR, 4.1 ± 6.8 vs 17.9 ± 15.4, P < 10-9, respectively). Conjunctivitis was reported in 84 of 241 (38.2%) patients. The proportion with eosinophilia (>500 cells/mm3) during follow-up (57%) was higher than that at baseline (33.7%) (n = 172, P < 10-6). Dupilumab was stopped in 42 cases; 27 patients stopped because of AEs. LIMITATIONS: No control group, missing data. CONCLUSION: This real-life study demonstrated a similar dupilumab effectiveness as that seen in clinical trials, but it also revealed a higher frequency of conjunctivitis and eosinophilia.