Discrepancies in hidradenitis suppurativa lesion characterization by providers and patients.

BACKGROUND: The hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) clinical response (HiSCR) has come under scrutiny as several HS clinical trials failed to meet primary endpoints with high placebo responses. This may be due to limitations of the tool and raters' ability to accurately characterize and count lesions, rather than lack of efficacy of the studied drug. Due to HS lesion complexity and potential differences in rater training, it was hypothesized that there would be discrepancies in how providers characterize and count lesions for HS clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how HS providers and patients name and count HS lesions and to identify discrepancies among providers to initiate the development of consensus-driven guidance for HS rater training. METHODS: An online survey was distributed to the members of HIdradenitis SuppuraTiva cORe outcomes set International Collaboration (HISTORIC). Respondents were asked to classify lesion images composed of multiple and different morphology types and answer questions regarding inclusion of associated dermatological conditions. RESULTS: Forty-seven HISTORIC members responded (29 providers; 18 patients). There was variability in how respondents classified HS lesions. Of 12 questions containing images, four had ≥50% of respondents choosing the same answer. With an image of a lesion composed of different morphologies, 45% of providers counted it as a single lesion and 45% counted it as multiple distinct lesions. With an image of multiple interconnected draining tunnels, 7% of providers classified it as a single draining tunnel while 79% categorized it as multiple draining tunnels with the number estimated by visual inspection. There was also variability in deciding whether lesions occurring in associated conditions should be considered separately or included in HS lesion counts. Patient responses were also variable. CONCLUSIONS: The result of the current study reaffirms the gap in how providers characterize and count HS lesions for clinical trials and the need to develop consensus-driven rater training related to HS outcome measures.

Sentinel lymph node biopsy is unreliable in predicting melanoma mortality for both younger and older patients.

BACKGROUND: Melanoma disease patterns vary with patient age. AIM: To evaluate sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in managing melanoma at differing patient ages. METHODS: Online prediction tools were applied to compare SLNB positivity (SLNB+) and survival risk at patient ages 20-80. Tübingen melanoma data were used to determine variations in the hazard ratio of SLNB+ for mortality at different patient ages. RESULTS: Regardless of tumour thickness, predicted SLNB+ rates were markedly higher than mortality rates for 20-year-old patients. For 80-year-old patients, it is the opposite. DISCUSSION: If 1000 20-year-olds with a 0.4 mm thickness non-ulcerated melanoma underwent SLNB, 100 would likely be positive. If all 100 were to be offered adjuvant drug therapy (ADT), fewer than three more melanoma deaths in those 1000 patients would be avoided. In total, 97 patients would have received medication they may never have needed. If 1000 80-year-olds with a 3 mm thickness non-ulcerated melanoma underwent SLNB, only 40 would likely be positive. In total, 274 patients would be predicted to die of melanoma, 245 being SLNB negative and 29 SLNB+. ADT linked to SLNB+ could deny treatment to 89% of these high-risk patients. LIMITATIONS: The authors relied on published risk data. CONCLUSION: SLNB has poor specificity at predicting mortality in young melanoma patients and poor sensitivity in older patients. SLNB is not indicated in managing cutaneous melanoma for patients under 40 or over 60 years of age. Many such patients could be managed with wide local excision alone in their clinician's office-based practice. For all cutaneous melanoma patients at all ages, linking ADT to BAUSSS biomarker, (an algorithm of Breslow thickness, age, ulceration, subtype, sex and Site) rather than SLNB+ is likely more appropriate. BAUSSS provides a more accurate melanoma-specific mortality risk assessment for patients without burdening them with added surgery, hospitalization, costs or morbidity risk.

External Validation of the IHS4-55 in a European Antibiotic-Treated Hidradenitis Suppurativa Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Previously, a new dichotomous outcome was developed, calculated as 55% reduction in the International Hidradenitis Suppurativa 4 (IHS4-55) score. It was validated in datasets of adalimumab and placebo-treated HS patients. External validation is an important aspect of clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to externally validate the novel dichotomous IHS4-55 in a non-biologic treated dataset of HS patients. METHODS: Data from a previously published European-wide prospective clinical study of antibiotic treatment of HS patients were used to assess the association of IHS4-55 achievement with individual reduction in inflammatory nodules, abscesses, and draining tunnels. Moreover, the associations between IHS4-55 positivity and achievement of the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) for Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) Pain, and NRS Pruritus were analyzed. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 283 individual patients, of which 36.4% (103/283) were treated with clindamycin and rifampicin and 63.6% (180/283) with tetracyclines for 12 weeks. Achievers of the IHS4-55 demonstrated a significant reduction the counts of inflammatory nodules, abscesses, and draining tunnels (all p < 0.001). Additionally, IHS4-55 achievers had an odds ratio for achieving the MCID of DLQI, NRS Pain, and NRS Pruritus of 2.16 (95% CI 1.28-3.65, p < 0.01), 1.79 (95% CI 1.10-2.91, p < 0.05), and 1.95 (95% CI 1.18-3.22, p < 0.01), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows the external validity of the novel IHS4-55 by demonstrating a significant association between IHS4-55 achievement and a reduction in inflammatory lesion counts as well as achievement of MCIDs for DLQI, NRS Pain, and NRS Pruritus in an antibiotic-treated cohort. These findings support the use of the IHS4-55 as a novel primary outcome measure in clinical trials.

Which hidradenitis suppurativa comorbidities should I take into account?

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic, recurrent skin inflammatory disease associated with a variety of comorbidities, like metabolic syndrome, reduced quality of life, sexual dysfunction, working disability, inflammatory bowel disease, axial spondyloarthritis, depression and anxiety. Like psoriasis, HS patients have been found to have higher risk of cardiovascular death and suicide risk. Evidence suggests that for such a chronic, multi-comorbid disease, the use of validated outcomes to assess severity and effect of treatment, along with the use of clinically important patient reported outcomes, is essential. Clinicians should be informed about these comorbidities so that appropriate screening is implemented. The potential of available treatments to negatively and positively affect these comorbidities should also be taken into account when designing treatment strategies. This article aims to provide an outline of important HS comorbidities with emphasis on possible implications for daily clinical practice.

Factors associated with treatment satisfaction in patients with hidradenitis suppurativa: results from the Global VOICE project.

BACKGROUND: Nearly half of patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) report dissatisfaction with their treatment. However, factors related to treatment satisfaction have not been explored. OBJECTIVES: To measure associations between treatment satisfaction and clinical and treatment-related characteristics among patients with HS. METHODS: Treatment satisfaction was evaluated utilizing data from a cross-sectional global survey of patients with HS recruited from 27 institutions, mainly HS referral centres, in 14 different countries from October 2017 to July 2018. The primary outcome was patients' self-reported overall satisfaction with their current treatments for HS, rated on a five-point scale from 'very dissatisfied' to 'very satisfied'. RESULTS: The final analysis cohort comprised 1418 patients with HS, most of whom were European (55%, 780 of 1418) or North American (38%, 542 of 1418), and female (85%, 1210 of 1418). Overall, 45% (640 of 1418) of participants were either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with their current medical treatment. In adjusted analysis, patients primarily treated by a dermatologist for HS had 1·99 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1·62-2·44, P < 0·001] times the odds of being satisfied with current treatment than participants not primarily treated by a dermatologist. Treatment with biologics was associated with higher satisfaction [odds ratio (OR) 2·36, 95% CI 1·74-3·19, P < 0·001] relative to treatment with nonbiologic systemic medications. Factors associated with lower treatment satisfaction included smoking (OR 0·78, 95% CI 0·62-0·99; active vs. never), depression (OR 0·69, 95% CI 0·54-0·87), increasing number of comorbidities (OR 0·88 per comorbidity, 95% CI 0·81-0·96) and increasing flare frequency. CONCLUSIONS: There are several factors that appear to positively influence satisfaction with treatment among patients with HS, including treatment by a dermatologist and treatment with a biologic medication. Factors that appear to lower treatment satisfaction include active smoking, depression, accumulation of comorbid conditions and increasing flare frequency. Awareness of these factors may support partnered decision making with the goal of improving treatment outcomes. What is already known about this topic? Nearly half of patients with hidradenitis suppurativa report dissatisfaction with their treatments. What does this study add? Satisfaction with treatment is increased by receiving care from a dermatologist and treatment with biologics. Satisfaction with treatment is decreased by tobacco smoking, accumulation of comorbid conditions including depression, and higher flare frequency. What are the clinical implications of this work? Awareness of the identified factors associated with poor treatment satisfaction may support partnered decision making and improve treatment outcomes.

Anti-COVID-19 measurements for hidradenitis suppurativa patients.

The reported incidence of COVID-19 among cohorts of patients with inflammatory bowel and skin diseases under treatment with biologicals is low. Treatment may further modify disease severity as some biological modifiers, such as anakinra, are also proposed for the management of COVID-19 patients potentially providing HS patients with an advantage. The above preliminary evidence suggests that hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) does probably not provide an increased susceptibility for COVID-19 and that any susceptibility is unlikely to be modified negatively by treatment with biologicals. On the occasion of its 10th International Conference, experts of the European Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation e.V. have prepared a consensus statement regarding anti-COVID-19 measurements for HS patients. Based on the available knowledge, patients with HS may be vaccinated against SARS-CoV2 and patients affected by metabolic syndrome constitute a high-risk group for COVID-19 and should be vaccinated at the earliest convenient point in time. HS patients on treatment with adalimumab can be vaccinated with non-living virus anti-SARS-CoV2 vaccines. A possible suboptimal effect of the vaccine may be suspected but might not be expected universally. The management of the biological treatment in HS patients is at the discretion of the dermatologist / responsible physician.

Target molecules for future hidradenitis suppurativa treatment.

The registration of the tumour necrosis factor-α inhibitor adalimumab in 2015 was a major step forward in the treatment of hidradenitis suppurativa/acne inversa (HS). However, it soon became evident that the effectiveness of adalimumab in daily practice was highly variable. A significant unmet medical need of HS patients remained, and the search for novel therapeutic targets was intensified. During the 10th European Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation (EHSF) e.V. Conference, reknown international HS investigators virtually presented and discussed the published data on these potential target molecules for future HS treatment. This article addresses the most promising molecules currently under investigation from a pathophysiological and clinical point of view. With phase III trials ongoing, the anti- interleukin (IL)-17 biologics bimekizumab and secukinumab are in the most advanced stage of clinical development showing promising results. In addition, targeting IL-1α with bermekimab has shown encouraging results in two clinical trials. Directing treatment at neutrophil recruitment and activation by targeting IL-36 with spesolimab fits well in the pathogenic concept of HS and clinical phase II trial results are pending. In contrast to in situ evidence, Complement 5a (C5a) and C5a receptor blockade have only shown greater clinical benefit in patients with severe HS. Inhibition of Janus kinase (JAK) 1 signalling in HS showed clinical efficacy only in the highest dosage, highlighting that careful surveillance of the balance between safety and efficacy of JAK inhibition is warranted. Overall, clinical efficacies of all novel treatments reported so far are modest. To guide drug development, more and better-defined translational data on the pathogenesis of this severe and enigmatic inflammatory skin disease are required.

The efficacy and tolerability of tetracyclines and clindamycin plus rifampicin for the treatment of hidradenitis suppurativa: Results of a prospective European cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Tetracyclines and clindamycin plus rifampicin combination therapy are both considered first-line therapy in current hidradenitis suppurativa guidelines. However, evidence for their efficacy is drawn from small studies, often without validated outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To assess the 12-week efficacy of oral tetracyclines and a combination of clindamycin and rifampicin. METHODS: A prospective, international cohort study performed between October 2018 and August 2019. RESULTS: In total, 63.6% of the included 283 patients received oral tetracyclines, and 36.4% were treated with clindamycin and rifampicin. Both groups showed a significant decrease in International Hidradenitis Suppurativa Severity Score System from baseline (both P < .001). The Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR) was achieved in 40.1% and 48.2% of patients, respectively (P = .26). Patient characteristics or disease severity were not associated with the attainment of HiSCR or the minimal clinically important differences for the Dermatology Life Quality Index and pain. LIMITATIONS: Cohort study. Respectively, 23.9% and 19.4% of patients had to be excluded from the HiSCR analysis for the tetracycline and combination therapy group because of a low abscess and nodule count at baseline. CONCLUSION: This study shows significant efficacy of both tetracycline treatment and clindamycin and rifampicin combination therapy after 12 weeks in patients with hidradenitis suppurativa. No significant differences in efficacy were observed between the 2 treatments, regardless of disease severity.

What causes hidradenitis suppurativa ?-15 years after.

The 14 authors of the first review article on hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) pathogenesis published 2008 in EXPERIMENTAL DERMATOLOGY cumulating from the 1st International Hidradenitis Suppurativa Research Symposium held March 30-April 2, 2006 in Dessau, Germany with 33 participants were prophetic when they wrote "Hopefully, this heralds a welcome new tradition: to get to the molecular heart of HS pathogenesis, which can only be achieved by a renaissance of solid basic HS research, as the key to developing more effective HS therapy." (Kurzen et al. What causes hidradenitis suppurativa? Exp Dermatol 2008;17:455). Fifteen years later, there is no doubt that the desired renaissance of solid basic HS research is progressing with rapid steps and that HS has developed deep roots among inflammatory diseases in Dermatology and beyond, recognized as "the only inflammatory skin disease than can be healed". This anniversary article of 43 research-performing authors from all around the globe in the official journal of the European Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation e.V. (EHSF e.V.) and the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation, Inc (HSF USA) summarizes the evidence of the intense HS clinical and experimental research during the last 15 years in all aspects of the disease and provides information of the developments to come in the near future.

Evaluating patients' unmet needs in hidradenitis suppurativa: Results from the Global Survey Of Impact and Healthcare Needs (VOICE) Project.

BACKGROUND: A needs assessment for patients with hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) will support advancements in multidisciplinary care, treatment, research, advocacy, and philanthropy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate unmet needs from the perspective of HS patients. METHODS: Prospective multinational survey of patients between October 2017 and July 2018. RESULTS: Before receiving a formal HS diagnosis, 63.7% (n = 827) of patients visited a physician ≥5 times. Mean delay in diagnosis was 10.2 ± 8.9 years. Patients experienced flare daily, weekly, or monthly in 23.0%, 29.8%, and 31.1%, respectively. Most (61.4% [n = 798]) rated recent HS-related pain as moderate or higher, and 4.5% described recent pain to be the worst possible. Access to dermatology was rated as difficult by 37.0% (n = 481). Patients reported visiting the emergency department and hospital ≥5 times for symptoms in 18.3% and 12.5%, respectively. An extreme impact on life was reported by 43.3% (n = 563), and 14.5% were disabled due to disease. Patients reported a high frequency of comorbidities, most commonly mood disorders. Patients were dissatisfied with medical or procedural treatments in 45.9% and 34.6%, respectively. LIMITATIONS: Data were self-reported. Patients with more severe disease may have been selected. CONCLUSION: HS patients have identified several critical unmet needs that will require stakeholder collaboration to meaningfully address.

Management of Ocular Manifestations of Atopic Dermatitis: A Consensus Meeting Using a Modified Delphi Process.

There is a need for unified guidance on the management of ocular manifestations of atopic dermatitis and ocular manifestations associated with dupilumab in the Nordic region (Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden). This initiative gathered Nordic dermatologists and ophthalmologists to identify consensus in this area using a modified Delphi process. The initiative was led by a Nordic expert panel who developed a questionnaire that was circulated to a wider group. The results informed an agenda consisting of 24 statements to be voted on using a 5-point Likert scale at a meeting in Copenhagen on 24 April 2019. A facilitator moderated discussion and revised statements according to expert feedback for a second vote when required to reach consensus. Consensus was reached for 23 statements regarding the diagnosis, treatment and referral of these patients, which we hope will improve patient management in the Nordic region.

Quality of Care and Management of Atopic Dermatitis Across Different Levels of Healthcare-A Survey-Based Patient Experience.

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic and fluctuating disease. Optimal management of AD and related comorbidities requires seamless coordination across multiple layers of the healthcare system. The objective of this survey was to explore patients' experiences with current management of AD. Out of 251 responders to this anonymous survey, 76% reported to have moderate or severe AD. Sixty-nine percent with moderate and 45% with severe AD were followed up at primary care level only. Use of advanced systemic treatment options was rare, and the majority experienced itch (97%), dry skin, rash, negative impact on self-esteem and comorbidities despite ongoing treatment. Only 36% received a treatment plan, more often in secondary (78.3%) than primary care (25.0%). Forty-three percent did not know who was responsible for their follow-up and 54% felt no one was responsible. Treatment options were commonly not known or understood. The survey results demonstrate undertreatment, lack of a holistic approach for management of AD. A national pathway including clear referral criteria and timelines can streamline management of AD across multiple levels of the healthcare system.