Search

BackgroundComparative, real-life and long-term evidence on the effectiveness and safety of phototherapy and systemic therapy in moderate-to-severe atopic eczema (AE) is limited. Such data must come from well-designed prospective patient registries. Standardization of data collection is needed for direct comparisons and data pooling.ObjectivesTo reach a consensus on how and when to measure the previously defined domain items of the TREatment of ATopic eczema (TREAT) Registry Taskforce core dataset for research registries for paediatric and adult patients with AE.MethodsProposals for the measurement instruments were based on recommendations of the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative, the existing AE database of TREATgermany, systematic reviews of the literature and expert opinions. The proposals were discussed at three face-to-face consensus meetings, one teleconference and via e-mail. The frequency of follow-up visits was determined by an expert survey.ResultsA total of 16 experts from seven countries participated in the 'how to measure' consensus process and 12 external experts were consulted. A consensus was reached for all domain items on how they should be measured by assigning measurement instruments. A minimum follow-up frequency of initially 4 weeks after commencing treatment, then every 3 months while on treatment and every 6 months while off treatment was defined.ConclusionsThis core dataset for national AE research registries will aid in the comparability and pooling of data across centres and country borders, and enables international collaboration to assess the long-term effectiveness and safety of phototherapy and systemic therapy used in patients with AE. What's already known about this topic? Comparable, real-life and long-term data on the effectiveness and safety of phototherapy and systemic therapy in patients with atopic eczema (AE) are needed. There is a high diversity of outcomes and instruments used in AE research, which require harmonization to enhance comparability and allow data pooling. What does this study add? Our taskforce has reached international consensus on how and when to measure core domain items for national AE research registries. This core dataset is now available for use by researchers worldwide and will aid in the collection of unified data. What are the clinical implications of this work? The data collected through this core dataset will help to gain better insights into the long-term effectiveness and safety of phototherapy and systemic therapy in AE and will provide important information for clinical practice. Standardization of such data collection at the national level will also allow direct data comparisons and pooling across country borders (e.g. in the analysis of treatment-related adverse events that require large patient numbers).

BackgroundComparative, real-life and long-term evidence on the effectiveness and safety of phototherapy and systemic therapy in moderate-to-severe atopic eczema (AE) is limited. Such data must come from well-designed prospective patient registries. Standardization of data collection is needed for direct comparisons and data pooling.ObjectivesTo reach a consensus on how and when to measure the previously defined domain items of the TREatment of ATopic eczema (TREAT) Registry Taskforce core dataset for research registries for paediatric and adult patients with AE.MethodsProposals for the measurement instruments were based on recommendations of the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative, the existing AE database of TREATgermany, systematic reviews of the literature and expert opinions. The proposals were discussed at three face-to-face consensus meetings, one teleconference and via e-mail. The frequency of follow-up visits was determined by an expert survey.ResultsA total of 16 experts from seven countries participated in the 'how to measure' consensus process and 12 external experts were consulted. A consensus was reached for all domain items on how they should be measured by assigning measurement instruments. A minimum follow-up frequency of initially 4 weeks after commencing treatment, then every 3 months while on treatment and every 6 months while off treatment was defined.ConclusionsThis core dataset for national AE research registries will aid in the comparability and pooling of data across centres and country borders, and enables international collaboration to assess the long-term effectiveness and safety of phototherapy and systemic therapy used in patients with AE. What's already known about this topic? Comparable, real-life and long-term data on the effectiveness and safety of phototherapy and systemic therapy in patients with atopic eczema (AE) are needed. There is a high diversity of outcomes and instruments used in AE research, which require harmonization to enhance comparability and allow data pooling. What does this study add? Our taskforce has reached international consensus on how and when to measure core domain items for national AE research registries. This core dataset is now available for use by researchers worldwide and will aid in the collection of unified data. What are the clinical implications of this work? The data collected through this core dataset will help to gain better insights into the long-term effectiveness and safety of phototherapy and systemic therapy in AE and will provide important information for clinical practice. Standardization of such data collection at the national level will also allow direct data comparisons and pooling across country borders (e.g. in the analysis of treatment-related adverse events that require large patient numbers).

BACKGROUND:Evidence of immunomodulatory therapies to guide clinical management of atopic eczema (AE) is scarce, despite frequent and often off-label use. Patient registries provide valuable evidence for the effects of treatments under real-world conditions that can inform treatment guidelines, give the opportunity for health economic evaluation and the evaluation of quality of care, as well as pharmacogenetic and dynamic research, which cannot be adequately addressed in clinical trials. OBJECTIVES:The TREatment of ATopic eczema (TREAT) Registry Taskforce aims to seek international consensus on a core set of domains and items ('what to measure') for AE research registries, using a Delphi approach. METHODS:Participants from six stakeholder groups were included: doctors, nurses, nonclinical researchers, patients, industry and regulatory body representatives. The eDelphi comprised three sequential online rounds, requesting participants to rate the importance of each proposed domain item. Participants could add domain items to the proposed list in round 1. A final consensus meeting was held to ratify the core set. RESULTS:Participants (n = 479) from 36 countries accessed the eDelphi platform, of whom 86%, 79% and 74% completed rounds 1, 2 and 3, respectively. At the face-to-face consensus meeting attended by 42 participants the final core set was established containing 19 domains with 69 domain items (49 baseline and 20 follow-up items). CONCLUSIONS:This core set of domains and items to be captured by national AE systemic therapy registries will standardize data collection and thereby allow direct comparability across registries and facilitate data pooling between countries. Ultimately, it will provide greater insight into the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of photo- and systemic immunomodulatory therapies.

BACKGROUND:Evidence of immunomodulatory therapies to guide clinical management of atopic eczema (AE) is scarce, despite frequent and often off-label use. Patient registries provide valuable evidence for the effects of treatments under real-world conditions that can inform treatment guidelines, give the opportunity for health economic evaluation and the evaluation of quality of care, as well as pharmacogenetic and dynamic research, which cannot be adequately addressed in clinical trials. OBJECTIVES:The TREatment of ATopic eczema (TREAT) Registry Taskforce aims to seek international consensus on a core set of domains and items ('what to measure') for AE research registries, using a Delphi approach. METHODS:Participants from six stakeholder groups were included: doctors, nurses, nonclinical researchers, patients, industry and regulatory body representatives. The eDelphi comprised three sequential online rounds, requesting participants to rate the importance of each proposed domain item. Participants could add domain items to the proposed list in round 1. A final consensus meeting was held to ratify the core set. RESULTS:Participants (n = 479) from 36 countries accessed the eDelphi platform, of whom 86%, 79% and 74% completed rounds 1, 2 and 3, respectively. At the face-to-face consensus meeting attended by 42 participants the final core set was established containing 19 domains with 69 domain items (49 baseline and 20 follow-up items). CONCLUSIONS:This core set of domains and items to be captured by national AE systemic therapy registries will standardize data collection and thereby allow direct comparability across registries and facilitate data pooling between countries. Ultimately, it will provide greater insight into the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of photo- and systemic immunomodulatory therapies.

BackgroundRoutinely collected electronic health data obtained for administrative and clinical purposes are increasingly used to study atopic dermatitis (AD). Methods for identifying AD patients in routinely collected electronic health data differ, and it is unknown how this might affect study results.ObjectivesTo evaluate how patients with AD have been identified in studies using routinely collected electronic health data, to determine whether these methods were validated and to estimate how the method for identifying patients with AD affected variability in prevalence estimates.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science for studies using routinely collected electronic health data that reported on AD as a primary outcome. Studies of localized AD and other types of dermatitis were excluded. The protocol for this review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016037968).ResultsIn total, 59 studies met eligibility criteria. Medical diagnosis codes for inclusion and exclusion, number of occasions of a code, type of provider associated with a code and prescription data were used to identify patients with AD. Only two studies described validation of their methods and no study reported on disease severity. Prevalence estimates ranged from 0·18% to 38·33% (median 4·91%) and up to threefold variation in prevalence was introduced by differences in the method for identifying patients with AD.ConclusionsThis systematic review highlights the need for clear reporting of methods for identifying patients with AD in routinely collected electronic health data to allow for meaningful interpretation and comparison of results.

BackgroundRoutinely collected electronic health data obtained for administrative and clinical purposes are increasingly used to study atopic dermatitis (AD). Methods for identifying AD patients in routinely collected electronic health data differ, and it is unknown how this might affect study results.ObjectivesTo evaluate how patients with AD have been identified in studies using routinely collected electronic health data, to determine whether these methods were validated and to estimate how the method for identifying patients with AD affected variability in prevalence estimates.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science for studies using routinely collected electronic health data that reported on AD as a primary outcome. Studies of localized AD and other types of dermatitis were excluded. The protocol for this review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016037968).ResultsIn total, 59 studies met eligibility criteria. Medical diagnosis codes for inclusion and exclusion, number of occasions of a code, type of provider associated with a code and prescription data were used to identify patients with AD. Only two studies described validation of their methods and no study reported on disease severity. Prevalence estimates ranged from 0·18% to 38·33% (median 4·91%) and up to threefold variation in prevalence was introduced by differences in the method for identifying patients with AD.ConclusionsThis systematic review highlights the need for clear reporting of methods for identifying patients with AD in routinely collected electronic health data to allow for meaningful interpretation and comparison of results.