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.

Identifying critical quality metrics in Mohs Surgery: A national expert consensus process.

BACKGROUND: Amid a movement toward value-based healthcare, increasing emphasis has been placed on outcomes and cost of medical services. To define and demonstrate the quality of services provided by Mohs surgeons, it is important to identify and understand the key aspects of Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) that contribute to excellence in patient care. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to develop and identify a comprehensive list of metrics in an initial effort to define excellence in MMS. METHODS: Mohs surgeons participated in a modified Delphi process to reach a consensus on a list of metrics. Patients were administered surveys to gather patient perspectives. RESULTS: Twenty-four of the original 66 metrics met final inclusion criteria. Broad support for the initiative was obtained through physician feedback. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of this study include attrition bias across survey rounds and participation at the consensus meeting. Furthermore, the list of metrics is based on expert consensus instead of quality evidence-based outcomes. CONCLUSION: With the goal of identifying metrics that demonstrate excellence in performance of MMS, this initial effort has shown that Mohs surgeons and patients have unique perspectives and can be engaged in a data-driven approach to help define excellence in the field of MMS.

Development of an international glossary for clinical guidelines collaboration.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are often created through collaboration among organizations. The use of inconsistent terminology may cause poor communication and delays. This study aimed to develop a glossary of terms related to collaboration in guideline development. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A literature review of collaborative guidelines was performed to develop an initial list of terms related to guideline collaboration. The list of terms was presented to the members of the Guideline International Network Guidelines Collaboration Working Group, who provided presumptive definitions for each term and proposed additional terms to be included. The revised list was subsequently reviewed by an international, multidisciplinary panel of expert stakeholders. Recommendations received during this pre-Delphi review were implemented to augment an initial draft glossary. The glossary was then critically evaluated and refined through two rounds of Delphi surveys and a virtual consensus meeting with all panel members as Delphi participants. RESULTS: Forty-nine experts participated in the pre-Delphi survey, and 44 participated in the two-round Delphi process. Consensus was reached for 37 terms and definitions. CONCLUSION: Uptake and utilization of this guideline collaboration glossary by key organizations and stakeholder groups may facilitate collaboration among guideline-producing organizations by improving communication, minimizing conflicts, and increasing guideline development efficiency.

Carcinoma en Cuirasse.

This case report describes hyperpigmented, indurated, and sclerotic plaques on the anterior trunk and upper abdomen with overlying scale that were studded with firm, erythematous papules.

Treatment of traumatic hypertrophic scars and keloids: a systematic review of randomized control trials.

Exaggerated healing and remodeling after skin injury may cause hypertrophic and keloidal scars, which are associated with functional and quality of life impairment. There is limited guidance available regarding the relative effectiveness of therapies for hypertrophic scars and keloids. In this review, we aim to compare the effectiveness of treatments for hypertrophic scars and keloids. MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Collaboration database were searched from inception to March 2019 for randomized control trials of treatments for hypertrophic and keloid scars that included 20 or more patients. Outcomes evaluated included the standardized mean reduction in scarring and adverse events. The type of scar and the demographic features were analyzed for their effect on clinical outcome. Based on 25 included clinical trials, intralesional injection (64.1% [95% CI 60.8-67.5%]) may be more effective than physical (29.9% [95% CI 28.9-30.9%]) or topical treatments (34% [95% CI 31.8-36.8%]). Combination of 5-fluorouracil and triamcinolone (9:1 dilution) appeared superior among intralesional treatments for keloids. Ablative laser and pulsed-dye laser were the most useful laser treatments. Regression modeling showed laser treatment response was linked to Fitzpatrick skin type (p = 0.002). Adverse events were uncommon for all treatments and mostly transient. Intralesional treatments for keloid and hypertrophic scars may be the most reliable treatment option to improve pathologic scars, while laser treatment may have specific benefits for Fitzpatrick skin types I-III over types IV-VI. Management of pathological scars is an area of critical need, where appropriate treatment can have a significant impact on quality of life.

Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Laser-Assisted Drug Delivery.

Importance: Laser-assisted drug delivery (LADD) is used for various medical and cosmetic applications. However, there is insufficient evidence-based guidance to assist clinicians performing LADD. Objective: To develop recommendations for the safe and effective use of LADD. Evidence Review: A systematic literature review of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and MEDLINE was conducted in December 2019 to identify publications reporting research on LADD. A multidisciplinary panel was convened to draft recommendations informed by the systematic review; they were refined through 2 rounds of Delphi survey, 2 consensus meetings, and iterative review by all panelists until unanimous consensus was achieved. Findings: Of the 48 published studies of ablative fractional LADD that met inclusion criteria, 4 were cosmetic studies; 21, oncologic; and 23, medical (not cosmetic/oncologic), and 6 publications of nonablative fractional LADD were included at the request of the expert panel, producing a total of 54 studies. Thirty-four studies (63.0%) were deemed to have low risk of bias, 17 studies (31.5%) had moderate risk, and 3 (5.5%) had serious risk. The key findings that informed the guidelines developed by the expert panel were as follows: LADD is safe in adults and adolescents (≥12 years) with all Fitzpatrick skin types and in patients with immunosuppression; it is an effective treatment for actinic keratosis, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in situ, actinic cheilitis, hypertrophic scars, and keloids; it is useful for epidermal and dermal analgesia; drug delivery may be increased through the application of heat, pressure, or occlusion, or by using an aqueous drug solution; laser settings should be selected to ensure that channel diameter is greater than the delivered molecule; antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended, except with impaired wound healing; antiviral prophylaxis is recommended when treating the face and genitalia; and antifungal prophylaxis is not recommended. The guideline's 15 recommendations address 5 areas of LADD use: (I) indications and contraindications; (II) parameters to report; (III) optimization of drug delivery; (IV) safety considerations; and (V) prophylaxis for bacterial, viral, and fungal infections. Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review and Delphi consensus approach culminated in an evidence-based clinical practice guideline for safe and effective use of LADD in a variety of applications. Future research will further improve our understanding of this novel treatment technique.

Voting behavior during FDA Medical Device Advisory Committee panel meetings.

OBJECTIVES: During premarket review, the US Food and Drug Administration may ask its Medical Device Advisory Committee (MDAC) Panels to assess the safety and effectiveness of medical devices being considered for approval. The objective of this study is to assess the relationship, if any, between individual votes and Panel recommendations and: (1) the composition of Panels, specifically the expertise and demographic features of individual members; or (2) Panel members' propensity to speak during Panel deliberations. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of routinely collected data from voting members of MDAC panels convened between January 2011 to June 2016 to consider premarket approval. Data sources were verbatim transcripts available publicly from the FDA. Number of words spoken, directionality of votes on device approval, profession, and demographics were collected. RESULTS: 658,954 words spoken by 536 members during 49 meetings of 11 Panels were analyzed. Based on multivariate analysis, biostatisticians spoke more (+373 words; P = 0.0002), and women (-187 words; P = 0.0184) and other non-physician voting members less (-213 words; P = 0.0306), than physicians. Speaking more was associated with abstaining (P = 0.0179), and with voting against the majority (P = 0.0153). Non-physician, non-biostatistician members (P = 0.0109), and those having attended more meetings as a voting member (P = 0.0249) were more likely to vote against approval. In bivariable analysis, unanimous Panels had a greater proportion of biostatisticians (mean 0.1580; 95% CI 0.1237-0.1923) than non-unanimous Panels (0.1107; 95% CI 0.0912-0.1301; p = 0.0201). CONCLUSIONS: Panelists likely to vote against the majority include non-physician, non-biostatisticians; experienced Panelists; and more talkative members. The increased presence of biostatisticians on Panels leads to greater voting consensus. Having a diversity of opinions on Panels, including in sufficient numbers those members likely to dissent from majority views, may help ensure that a diversity of opinions are aired before decision-making.

The evidence base for US joint commission hospital accreditation standards: cross sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence upon which standards for hospital accreditation by The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (the Joint Commission) are based. DESIGN: Cross sectional study. SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: Four Joint Commission R3 (requirement, rationale, and reference) reports released by July 2018 and intended to become effective between 1 July 2018 and 1 July 2019. INTERVENTIONS: From each R3 report the associated standard and its specific elements of performance (or actionable standards) were extracted. If an actionable standard enumerated multiple requirements, these were separated into distinct components. Two investigators reviewed full text references, and each actionable standard was classified as either completely supported, partly supported, or not supported; Oxford evidence quality ratings were assigned; and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess the strength of recommendations. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Strengths of recommendation for actionable standards. RESULTS: 20 actionable standards with 76 distinct components were accompanied by 48 references. Of the 20 actionable standards, six (30%) were completely supported by cited references, six were partly supported (30%), and eight (40%) were not supported. Of the six directly supported actionable standards, one (17%) cited at least one reference of level 1 or 2 evidence, none cited at least one reference of level 3 evidence, and five (83%) cited references of level 4 or 5 evidence. Of the completely supported actionable standards, strength of recommendation in five was deemed GRADE D and in one was GRADE B. CONCLUSIONS: In general, recent actionable standards issued by The Joint Commission are seldom supported by high quality data referenced within the issuing documents. The Joint Commission might consider being more transparent about the quality of evidence and underlying rationale supporting each of its recommendations, including clarifying when and why in certain instances it determines that lower level evidence is sufficient.

Development of a core outcome set for basal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: There is variation in the outcomes reported in clinical studies of basal cell carcinoma. This can prevent effective meta-analyses from answering important clinical questions. OBJECTIVE: To identify a recommended minimum set of core outcomes for basal cell carcinoma clinical trials. METHODS: Patient and professional Delphi process to cull a long list, culminating in a consensus meeting. To be provisionally accepted, outcomes needed to be deemed important (score, 7-9, with 9 being the maximum) by 70% of each stakeholder group. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-five candidate outcomes identified via a systematic literature review and survey of key stakeholders were reduced to 74 that were rated by 100 health care professionals and patients in 2 Delphi rounds. Twenty-seven outcomes were provisionally accepted. The final core set of 5 agreed-upon outcomes after the consensus meeting included complete response; persistent or serious adverse events; recurrence-free survival; quality of life; and patient satisfaction, including cosmetic outcome. LIMITATIONS: English-speaking patients and professionals rated outcomes extracted from English language studies. CONCLUSION: A core outcome set for basal cell carcinoma has been developed. The use of relevant measures may improve the utility of clinical research and the quality of therapeutic guidance available to clinicians.

Nonmelanoma Skin Cancer in Patients Older Than Age 85 Years Presenting for Mohs Surgery: A Prospective, Multicenter Cohort Study.

Importance: It has been suggested that Mohs surgery for skin cancer among individuals with limited life expectancy may be associated with needless risk and discomfort, along with increased health care costs. Objective: To investigate patient- and tumor-specific indications considered by clinicians for treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancer in older individuals. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, prospective cohort study was conducted using data from US private practice and academic centers. Included patients were those older than age 85 years presenting for skin cancer surgery and referred for Mohs surgery, with reference groups of those younger than age 85 years receiving Mohs surgery and those older than age 85 years not receiving Mohs surgery. Data were analyzed from November 2018 through January 2019. Exposures: Mohs surgery for nonmelanoma skin cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures: Reason for treatment selection. Results: Among 1181 patients older than age 85 years referred for Mohs surgery (724 [61.9%] men among 1169 patients with sex data; 681 individuals aged >85 to 88 years [57.9%] among 1176 patients with age data) treated at 22 sites, 1078 patients (91.3%) were treated by Mohs surgery, and 103 patients (8.7%) received alternate treatment. Patients receiving Mohs surgery were more likely to have tumors on the face (738 patients [68.5%] vs 26 patients [25.2%]; P < .001) and nearly 4-fold more likely to have high functional status (614 patients [57.0%] vs 16 patients [15.5%]; P < .001). Of 15 distinct reasons provided by surgeons for opting to proceed with Mohs surgery, the most common were patient desire for treatment with a high cure rate (712 patients [66.0%]), good or excellent patient functional status for age (614 patients [57.0%]), and high risk associated with the tumor based on histology (433 patients [40.2%]). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that older patients who received Mohs surgery often had high functional status, high-risk tumors, and tumors located on the face. These findings suggest that timely surgical treatment may be appropriate in older patients given that their tumors may be aggressive, painful, disfiguring, and anxiety provoking.

Protocol for development of a core outcome set for clinical trials in melasma.

INTRODUCTION: Melasma is a pigmentation disorder of the skin. Characterised by brown to gray-brown patches on the face and neck, the condition predominantly affects women and has been associated with pregnancy, hormonal variation and sun exposure. Melasma can be disfiguring and anxiety-provoking, and quality of life is often adversely impacted. Management includes sun protection, laser and energy device therapy, topical and oral skin-bleaching agents and chemical peels. While clinical trials of melasma exist, there is a lack of consistency in reported outcomes, which has been a barrier to the aggregation of data in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This protocol describes a planned process for development of a minimum set of outcomes (ie, 'core outcome set') that should be measured in all clinical trials of melasma. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An exhaustive list of potential outcomes will be extracted from four sources: (1) systematic literature review of outcomes in clinical trials; (2) semistructured patient interviews; (3) brochures, pamphlets, clinical trial registries, and other published and unpublished sources and documentation; and (4) interviews with non-patient, non-physician stakeholders, including federal regulators, industry scientists and non-physician providers. An international two-round Delphi process will then be performed to identify the outcomes deemed most important to patients and physicians. Subsequently, a consensus meeting will be convened to review and process the results, and to vote on a final set of core outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was provided by the Northwestern University Institutional Review Board (protocol ID: STU00201637). This study is registered with both the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials and Cochrane Skin-Core Outcome Set Initiative initiatives, and this protocol is in accordance with the guidelines for protocol development of both groups. All findings from the study described in this protocol will be disseminated to all stakeholders involved in the development process and will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020214189.

Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Extramammary Paget Disease.

IMPORTANCE: Extramammary Paget disease (EMPD) is a frequently recurring malignant neoplasm with metastatic potential that presents in older adults on the genital, perianal, and axillary skin. Extramammary Paget disease can precede or occur along with internal malignant neoplasms. OBJECTIVE: To develop recommendations for the care of adults with EMPD. EVIDENCE REVIEW: A systematic review of the literature on EMPD from January 1990 to September 18, 2019, was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Libraries. Analysis included 483 studies. A multidisciplinary expert panel evaluation of the findings led to the development of clinical care recommendations for EMPD. FINDINGS: The key findings were as follows: (1) Multiple skin biopsies, including those of any nodular areas, are critical for diagnosis. (2) Malignant neoplasm screening appropriate for age and anatomical site should be performed at baseline to distinguish between primary and secondary EMPD. (3) Routine use of sentinel lymph node biopsy or lymph node dissection is not recommended. (4) For intraepidermal EMPD, surgical and nonsurgical treatments may be used depending on patient and tumor characteristics, although cure rates may be superior with surgical approaches. For invasive EMPD, surgical resection with curative intent is preferred. (5) Patients with unresectable intraepidermal EMPD or patients who are medically unable to undergo surgery may receive nonsurgical treatments, including radiotherapy, imiquimod, photodynamic therapy, carbon dioxide laser therapy, or other modalities. (6) Distant metastatic disease may be treated with chemotherapy or individualized targeted approaches. (7) Close follow-up to monitor for recurrence is recommended for at least the first 5 years. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Clinical practice guidelines for EMPD provide guidance regarding recommended diagnostic approaches, differentiation between invasive and noninvasive disease, and use of surgical vs nonsurgical treatments. Prospective registries may further improve our understanding of the natural history of the disease in primary vs secondary EMPD, clarify features of high-risk tumors, and identify superior management approaches.

Treatment of Surgical Scars With Combination Pulsed Dye and Fractional Nonablative Laser: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness and safety of combined pulsed-dye laser (PDL) and NAFL for treatment of surgical scars. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: PDL and NAFL have not been compared to healing by time alone. METHODS: Randomized controlled, single-blinded clinical trial at an urban, university hospital. Healthy adults' status post skin surgery with primary closure were randomized to either 3 sessions of combination PDL and NAFL every 2 to 8 weeks, or control of no treatment. At baseline and 36-week follow-up, Patient and observer Scar Assessment Scale and Scar Cosmesis Assessment and Rating were completed by participants and blinded physicians. The primary outcome was scar improvement, as measured by the score difference over time. RESULTS: Of 76 participants, 52 completed the study (July 2017 to June 2019). No severe adverse events were reported. Patient and observer Scar Assessment Scale assessments demonstrated improvement in total score in the laser group compared to controls, as reported by patients [mean difference (standard deviation), laser: 12.86 (6.91) vs control: 7.25 (6.34); P = 0.004] and blinded physicians [18.32 (8.69) vs 13.08 (9.63); P = 0.044]. Patients observed a greater improvement in scar thickness [3.68 (2.04) vs 1.88 (1.85); P = 0.002] and stiffness [3.57 (2.78) vs 1.50 (2.11); P = 0.004] with lasers, and physicians reported greater improvement in vascularity [3.71 (1.98) vs 1.71 (1.52); P = 0.0002]. The live Scar Cosmesis Assessment and Rating subscore for erythema improved significantly with lasers [1.04 (0.79) vs 0.42 (0.50); P = 0.001]. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Combined PDL and NAFL resulted in scar improvement. Scar thickness, stiffness, and erythema were improved. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03057964).

A systematic review of autologous adipose-derived stromal vascular fraction (SVF) for the treatment of acute cutaneous wounds.

BACKGROUND: Stromal vascular fraction (SVF), derived enzymatically or mechanically from adipose tissue, contains a heterogenous population of cells and stroma, including multipotent stem cells. The regenerative capacity of SVF may potentially be adapted for a broad range of clinical applications, including the healing of acute cutaneous wounds. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the available literature on the efficacy and safety of autologous adipose-derived stromal vascular fraction (SVF) for the treatment of acute cutaneous wounds in humans. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature utilizing MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed to identify published clinical trials of autologous adipose-derived SVF or similar ADSC-containing derivatives for patients with acute cutaneous wounds. This was supplemented by searches for ongoing clinical trials through ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. RESULTS: 872 records were initially retrieved. Application of inclusion and exclusion criteria yielded 10 relevant studies: two completed non-randomized controlled trials and eight ongoing clinical trials. Both completed studies reported a statistically significant benefit in percentage re-epithelialization and time to healing for the SVF treatment arms. Safety information for SVF was not provided. Ongoing clinical trials were assessing outcomes such as safety, patient and observer reported scar appearance, wound healing rate, and wound epithelization. CONCLUSION: In the context of substantial limitations in the quantity and quality of available evidence, the existing literature suggests that SVF may be a useful treatment for acute cutaneous wounds in humans. More clinical trials with improved outcome measures and safety assessment are needed.