An economic evaluation of the randomized controlled trial of topical corticosteroid and home-based narrowband ultraviolet B for active and limited vitiligo (the HI-Light Vitiligo Trial).

BACKGROUND: Economic evidence for vitiligo treatments is absent. OBJECTIVES: To determine the cost-effectiveness of (i) handheld narrowband ultraviolet B (NB-UVB) and (ii) a combination of topical corticosteroid (TCS) and NB-UVB compared with TCS alone for localized vitiligo. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a pragmatic, three-arm, placebo-controlled randomized controlled trial with 9 months' treatment. In total 517 adults and children (aged ≥ 5 years) with active vitiligo affecting < 10% of skin were recruited from secondary care and the community and were randomized 1: 1: 1 to receive TCS, NB-UVB or both. Cost per successful treatment (measured on the Vitiligo Noticeability Scale) was estimated. Secondary cost-utility analyses measured quality-adjusted life-years using the EuroQol 5 Dimensions 5 Levels for those aged ≥ 11 years and the Child Health Utility 9D for those aged 5 to < 18 years. The trial was registered with number ISRCTN17160087 on 8 January 2015. RESULTS: The mean ± SD cost per participant was £775 ± 83·7 for NB-UVB, £813 ± 111.4 for combination treatment and £600 ± 96·2 for TCS. In analyses adjusted for age and target patch location, the incremental difference in cost for combination treatment compared with TCS was £211 (95% confidence interval 188-235), corresponding to a risk difference of 10·9% (number needed to treat = 9). The incremental cost was £1932 per successful treatment. The incremental difference in cost for NB-UVB compared with TCS was £173 (95% confidence interval 151-196), with a risk difference of 5·2% (number needed to treat = 19). The incremental cost was £3336 per successful treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Combination treatment, compared with TCS alone, has a lower incremental cost per additional successful treatment than NB-UVB only. Combination treatment would be considered cost-effective if decision makers are willing to pay £1932 per additional treatment success.

Randomized controlled trial of topical corticosteroid and home-based narrowband ultraviolet B for active and limited vitiligo: results of the HI-Light Vitiligo Trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence for the effectiveness of vitiligo treatments is limited. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of (i) handheld narrowband UVB (NB-UVB) and (ii) a combination of potent topical corticosteroid (TCS) and NB-UVB, compared with TCS alone, for localized vitiligo. METHODS: A pragmatic, three-arm, placebo-controlled randomized controlled trial (9-month treatment, 12-month follow-up). Adults and children, recruited from secondary care and the community, aged ≥ 5 years and with active vitiligo affecting < 10% of skin, were randomized 1 : 1 : 1 to receive TCS (mometasone furoate 0·1% ointment + dummy NB-UVB), NB-UVB (NB-UVB + placebo TCS) or a combination (TCS + NB-UVB). TCS was applied once daily on alternating weeks; NB-UVB was administered on alternate days in escalating doses, adjusted for erythema. The primary outcome was treatment success at 9 months at a target patch assessed using the participant-reported Vitiligo Noticeability Scale, with multiple imputation for missing data. The trial was registered with number ISRCTN17160087 on 8 January 2015. RESULTS: In total 517 participants were randomized to TCS (n = 173), NB-UVB (n = 169) and combination (n = 175). Primary outcome data were available for 370 (72%) participants. The proportions with target patch treatment success were 17% (TCS), 22% (NB-UVB) and 27% (combination). Combination treatment was superior to TCS: adjusted between-group difference 10·9% (95% confidence interval 1·0%-20·9%; P = 0·032; number needed to treat = 10). NB-UVB alone was not superior to TCS: adjusted between-group difference 5·2% (95% CI - 4·4% to 14·9%; P = 0·29; number needed to treat = 19). Participants using interventions with ≥ 75% expected adherence were more likely to achieve treatment success, but the effects were lost once treatment stopped. Localized grade 3 or 4 erythema was reported in 62 (12%) participants (including three with dummy light). Skin thinning was reported in 13 (2·5%) participants (including one with placebo ointment). CONCLUSIONS: Combination treatment with home-based handheld NB-UVB plus TCS is likely to be superior to TCS alone for treatment of localized vitiligo. Combination treatment was relatively safe and well tolerated but was successful in only around one-quarter of participants.

International Initiative for Outcomes (INFO) for vitiligo: workshops with patients with vitiligo on repigmentation.

BACKGROUND: There is no cure or firm clinical recommendations for the treatment of vitiligo. One of the main issues is the heterogeneity of outcome measures used in randomized controlled trials for vitiligo. OBJECTIVES: To define successful repigmentation from the patients' point of view and to propose how and when repigmentation should be evaluated in clinical trials in vitiligo. METHODS: We conducted three workshops with patients with vitiligo and their parents or caregivers. Workshop 1 was held at World Vitiligo Day (Detroit, MI), workshop 2 at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and workshop 3 at the Vitiligo and Pigmentation Institute of Southern California, University of California. RESULTS: Seventy-three participants were recruited. Consensus on the following questions was achieved unanimously: (i) the definition of 'successful repigmentation' was 80-100% of repigmentation of a target lesion and (ii) both an objective and a subjective scale to measure repigmentation should be used. CONCLUSIONS: This was the largest patients' outcomes workshop. We followed the guidance from the CSG-COUSIN and the Vitiligo Global Issues Consensus Group. Our recommendations to use percentage of repigmentation quartiles (0-25%, 26-50%, 51-79%, 80-100%) and the Vitiligo Noticeability Scale are based on the best available current evidence. A limitation of the research is that the workshops were conducted only in the U.S.A., due to pre-existing organisational support and the availability of funding.

Core outcome sets in dermatology: report from the second meeting of the International Cochrane Skin Group Core Outcome Set Initiative.

Results of clinical trials are the most important information source for generating external clinical evidence. The use of different outcomes across trials, which investigate similar interventions for similar patient groups, significantly limits the interpretation, comparability and clinical application of trial results. Core outcome sets (COSs) aim to overcome this limitation. A COS is an agreed standardized collection of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials for a specific clinical condition. The Core Outcome Set Initiative within the Cochrane Skin Group (CSG-COUSIN) supports the development of core outcomes in dermatology. In the second CSG-COUSIN meeting held in 2017, 11 COS development groups working on skin diseases presented their current work. The presentations and discussions identified the following overarching methodological challenges for COS development in dermatology: it is not always easy to define the disease focus of a COS; the optimal method for outcome domain identification and level of detail needed to specify such domains is challenging to many; decision rules within Delphi surveys need to be improved; appropriate ways of patient involvement are not always clear. In addition, there appear to be outcome domains that may be relevant as potential core outcome domains for the majority of skin diseases. The close collaboration between methodologists in the Core Outcome Set Initiative and the international Cochrane Skin Group has major advantages for trialists, systematic reviewers and COS developers.

Report from the kick-off meeting of the Cochrane Skin Group Core Outcome Set Initiative (CSG-COUSIN).

A major obstacle of evidence-based clinical decision making is the use of nonstandardized, partly untested outcome measurement instruments. Core Outcome Sets (COSs) are currently developed in different medical fields to standardize and improve the selection of outcomes and outcome measurement instruments in clinical trials, in order to pool results of trials or to allow indirect comparison between interventions. A COS is an agreed minimum set of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials of a specific disease or trial population. The international, multidisciplinary Cochrane Skin Group Core Outcome Set Initiative (CSG-COUSIN) aims to develop and implement COSs in dermatology, thus making trial evidence comparable and, herewith, more useful for clinical decision making. The inaugural meeting of CSG-COUSIN was held on 17-18 March 2015 in Dresden, Germany, as the exclusive theme of the Annual Cochrane Skin Group Meeting. In total, 29 individuals representing a broad mix of different stakeholder groups, professions, skills and perspectives attended. This report provides a description of existing COS initiatives in dermatology, highlights current methodological challenges in COS development, and presents the concept, aims and structure of CSG-COUSIN.

Evidence-based management of vitiligo: summary of a Cochrane systematic review.

Vitiligo affects around 1% of the world's population. Despite it being relatively common, there is still no effective treatment. The objective of this study was to update the Cochrane systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy of treatments for vitiligo. We carried out searches of a range of databases to October 2013 for RCTs of interventions for vitiligo regardless of language or publication status. At least two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility and methodological quality and extracted data using data extraction forms approved by the Cochrane Skin Group. Our primary outcomes of interest were quality of life, > 75% repigmentation and adverse effects. We retrieved 96 studies, of which 39 were new studies, with an overall total of 4512 participants. Repigmentation was assessed in all studies, although only five reported on all three of our primary outcomes. Regarding our two secondary outcomes, six studies measured cessation of spread but none assessed long-term permanence of repigmentation at 2 years' follow-up. Most of the studies evaluated combination treatments, which generally showed better repigmentation than monotherapies. Of the new studies, seven were surgical interventions. The majority of the studies had fewer than 50 participants. The quality of the studies was poor to moderate at best. Very few studies specifically included children or participants with segmental vitiligo. Five years after the last update of this review, there are still important variations in study design and outcome measures in clinical trials for vitiligo, limiting the evidence for the efficacy of different therapeutic options. The best evidence from individual trials showed short-term benefit from topical corticosteroids and various forms of ultraviolet radiation combined with topical preparations. Long-term follow-up and patient-rated outcomes should be incorporated into study design, and more studies should assess psychological interventions.

Future horizons in vitiligo research: focusing on the recommendations of the Cochrane systematic review 'Interventions for vitiligo' 2010.

The 'Implications for research' section of the Cochrane systematic review, 'Interventions for vitiligo', published in 2010, highlighted three main issues that impact the standard of vitiligo research: (i) lack of consensus on the classification and definition of vitiligo; (ii) lack of consensus on the methods of assessment and outcome measures for vitiligo; and (iii) heterogeneity of interventions compared. This article provides an update of the progress made to resolve these issues since the publication of the Cochrane systematic review in 2010, 'Interventions for vitiligo'.

Guidelines for the management of vitiligo: the European Dermatology Forum consensus.

The aetiopathogenic mechanisms of vitiligo are still poorly understood, and this has held back progress in diagnosis and treatment. Up until now, treatment guidelines have existed at national levels, but no common European viewpoint has emerged. This guideline for the treatment of segmental and nonsegmental vitiligo has been developed by the members of the Vitiligo European Task Force and other colleagues. It summarizes evidence-based and expert-based recommendations (S1 level).

Which outcomes should we measure in vitiligo? Results of a systematic review and a survey among patients and clinicians on outcomes in vitiligo trials.

BACKGROUND: Relevant and reliable outcomes play a crucial role in the correct interpretation and comparison of the results of clinical trials. There is a lack of consensus around methods of assessment and outcome measures for vitiligo, which makes it difficult to compare results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and perform meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES: To describe the heterogeneity in outcome measures used in published RCTs of vitiligo treatments, and to report the most desirable outcomes from patients' and clinicians' perspectives. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of outcome measures used in RCTs as well as a survey of the most desirable outcomes identified by patients and clinicians as part of a Vitiligo Priority Setting Partnership. RESULTS: Outcomes from 54 eligible trials were analysed and compared with outcomes suggested by patients and clinicians. In the systematic review, 25 different outcomes were reported. Only 22% of trials had clearly stated primary outcome measures. Repigmentation was the most frequently reported outcome in 96% of trials and was measured using 48 different scales. Only 9% of trials assessed quality of life. Thirteen per cent measured cessation of spreading of the disease and 17% of studies reported patients' opinions and satisfaction with the treatment. In contrast, out of 438 suggestions made by patients and clinicians, cosmetically acceptable repigmentation (rather than percentage of repigmentation) was the most desirable outcome (68%), followed by cessation of spread of vitiligo (15%), quality of life (8%) and maintenance of repigmentation (4%). CONCLUSIONS: We propose that future vitiligo trials should include repigmentation, cosmetic acceptability of results, global assessment of the disease, quality of life, maintenance of repigmentation, stabilization of vitiligo and side-effects. International consensus among clinicians, researchers and patients is needed to establish an agreed core outcome set for future vitiligo trials.

Future research into the treatment of vitiligo: where should our priorities lie? Results of the vitiligo priority setting partnership.

BACKGROUND: Vitiligo is the most frequent depigmentation disorder of the skin and is cosmetically and psychologically devastating. A recently updated Cochrane systematic review 'Interventions for vitiligo' showed that the research evidence for treatment of vitiligo is poor, making it difficult to make firm recommendations for clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To stimulate and steer future research in the field of vitiligo treatment, by identifying the 10 most important research areas for patients and clinicians. METHODS: A vitiligo priority setting partnership was established including patients, healthcare professionals and researchers with an interest in vitiligo. Vitiligo treatment uncertainties were gathered from patients and clinicians, and then prioritized in a transparent process, using a methodology advocated by the James Lind Alliance. RESULTS: In total, 660 treatment uncertainties were submitted by 461 participants. These were reduced to a list of the 23 most popular topics through an online/paper voting process. The 23 were then prioritized at a face-to-face workshop in London. The final list of the top 10 treatment uncertainties included interventions such as systemic immunosuppressants, topical treatments, light therapy, melanocyte-stimulating hormone analogues, gene therapy, and the impact of psychological interventions on the quality of life of patients with vitiligo. CONCLUSIONS: The top 10 research areas for the treatment of vitiligo provide guidance for researchers and funding bodies, to ensure that future research answers questions that are important both to clinicians and to patients.