Search

BackgroundThere is limited evidence on the best available treatment options for capillary malformations (CMs), mainly due to the absence of uniform outcome measures in trials on therapies. A core outcome set (COS) enables standard reporting of trial outcomes, which facilitates comparison of treatment results.ObjectivesTo develop a core outcome domain set (CDS), as part of a core outcome set (COS), for clinical research on CMs.MethodsSixty-seven potentially relevant outcome subdomains were recognized based on the literature, focus group sessions, and input from the COSCAM working group. These outcome subdomains were presented in an online Delphi study to CM experts (medical specialists and authors of relevant literature) and (parents of) patients with CM (international patient associations). During three e-Delphi study rounds, the participants repeatedly scored the importance of these outcome subdomains on a seven-point Likert scale. Participants could also propose other relevant outcome subdomains. Consensus was defined as ≥ 80% agreement as to the importance of an outcome subdomain among both stakeholder groups. The CDS was finalized during an online consensus meeting.ResultsIn total 269 participants from 45 countries participated in the first e-Delphi study round. Of these, 106 were CM experts from 32 countries, made up predominantly of dermatologists (59%) and plastic surgeons (18%). Moreover, 163 (parents of) patients with CM from 28 countries participated, of whom 58% had Sturge-Weber syndrome. During the two subsequent e-Delphi study rounds, 189 and 148 participants participated, respectively. After the entire consensus process, consensus was reached on 11 outcome subdomains: colour/redness, thickness, noticeability, distortion of anatomical structures, glaucoma, overall health-related quality of life, emotional functioning, social functioning, tolerability of intervention, patient satisfaction with treatment results, and recurrence.ConclusionsWe recommend the CDS to be used as a minimum reporting standard in all future trials of CM therapy. Our next step will be to select suitable outcome measurement instruments to score the core outcome subdomains. What is already known about this topic? Besides physical and functional sequelae, capillary malformations (CMs) often cause emotional and social burden. The lack of uniform outcome measures obstructs proper evaluation and comparison of treatment strategies. As a result, there is limited evidence on the best available treatment options. The development of a core outcome set (COS) may improve standardized reporting of trial outcomes. What does this study add? A core outcome domain set (CDS), as part of a COS, was developed for clinical research on CMs. International consensus was reached on the recommended core outcome subdomains to be measured in CM trials: colour/redness, thickness, noticeability, distortion of anatomical structures, glaucoma, overall health-related quality of life, emotional functioning, social functioning, tolerability of intervention, patient satisfaction with treatment results, and recurrence. This CDS enables the next step in the development of a COS, namely to reach consensus on the core outcome measurement instruments to score the core outcome subdomains. What are the clinical implications of this work? The obtained CDS will facilitate standardized reporting of treatment outcomes, thereby enabling proper comparison of treatment results. This comparison is likely to provide more reliable information for patients about the best available treatment options.

BackgroundDue to a large variety in treatment outcomes reported in therapeutic trials and lacking patient-relevant outcomes, it is hard to adequately compare and improve current therapies for patients with capillary malformations (CMs). The Core Outcome Set for Capillary Malformations (COSCAM) project aims to develop a core outcome set (COS) for use in future CM trials, in which we will first develop a core outcome (sub)domain set (CDS). Here, we describe the methods for the development of a CDS and present the results of the first development stage.MethodsThe COSCAM project is carried out according to the recommendations of the Cochrane Skin Core OUtcomes Set INitiative (CS-COUSIN) and the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative. During the first stage, we identified all potentially relevant outcome subdomains based on a systematic review, two focus group sessions and input from patient representatives of Dutch patient organizations and the COSCAM-founding group. In stage two, we will present the subdomains in a three-round e-Delphi study and online consensus meeting, in which CM patients, parents/caregivers and CM experts worldwide rate the importance of the proposed subdomains, hereby finalizing the core outcome (sub)domains of the CDS.ResultsA total of 67 potential outcome subdomains were included; sixteen were previously used in the literature, 20 were proposed by Dutch patients and their parents/caregivers (n = 13) in focus group sessions and 38 were suggested by the experts of the COSCAM-founding group. Seven were excluded because of overlap.ConclusionThe final CDS may serve as a minimum standard in future CM trials, thereby facilitating adequate comparison of treatment outcomes. After this CDS development, we will select appropriate outcome measurement instruments to measure the core outcome subdomains.

IntroductionWhile laser technology has expanded the armamentarium of treatment for various skin diseases during the past years, heterogeneity in study outcomes hampers comparability and appropriate evidence synthesis. Part of these issues can be addressed by developing a generic outcome set. Using the Delphi method, this study aims to seek consensus between key stakeholders on relevant generic outcomes (what to measure) for implementation in the international registry on Laser trEAtments in Dermatology (LEAD). The registry is focused on collecting research data on various laser treatments for skin disorders.Methods and analysisBy reviewing the literature and involvement of key stakeholder groups and adult patients in need or after laser surgery and health professionals, a preliminary list of outcomes will be generated and categorised into domains. Using these outcomes, an international three-round Delphi study will be performed to rate the importance of outcomes in the selection of a generic outcome set. Participants are allowed to provide new outcomes to the preliminary list for revisions during the first Delphi round. Finally, results will be discussed during a consensus meeting to agree on generic outcomes to be used in the LEAD registry.Ethics and disseminationAn ethics approval was not applicable (W19_290 # 18.336). The study is registered with the Cochrane Skin Core OUtcome Set INitiative) and the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials initiative. Procedures will be conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

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.

Tuberculosis (TB), caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis, is a significant global health problem. In immunocompetent individuals, the microorganism can remain in a latent, non‐contagious form, however, it may become active under conditions of immunosuppression. Tumour necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors, which are frequently used for the management of immune‐mediated disorders like psoriasis, have been associated with a significantly increased risk of reactivating latent TB. Consequently, international guidelines recommend TB screening and preventive treatment before starting anti‐TNF therapy. These recommendations have extended to IL‐12/23, IL‐17, IL‐23 and TYK2 inhibitors under a caution principle, despite their different mechanisms of action. However, current evidence suggests that some of these agents are arguably not associated with an increased risk of TB reactivation or development of TB disease after infection, which calls for a critical reassessment of these guidelines. We have conducted a literature search evaluating the risk of TB reactivation associated with these innovative therapies, integrating findings from both randomized clinical trials and real‐world evidence. The identified evidence is limited but the low number of identified cases of reactivation with IL‐17 and IL‐23 inhibitors prompts reconsidering the need for preventive treatment for latent TB in all cases, regardless of biologic class or individual patient's risk of TB reactivation or drug toxicity. This review, along with the clinical insight of a panel of experts on behalf of the SPIN‐FRT, led to the development of these consensus recommendations for managing psoriasis treatment in patients with latent TB infection or at risk of TB infection, who are receiving or are intended to receive biologic and non‐biologic targeted therapies. These recommendations highlight the need for updates to the existing guidelines, aiming to provide a more differentiated approach that reflects the evolving landscape of psoriasis treatment and its implications for TB management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Eczema Area and Severity Index is an investigator‐assessed instrument reporting clinical signs of atopic dermatitis. The instrument is extensively validated in both adult and paediatric populations and recommended as a core outcome measure to assess clinical signs by the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema initiative in clinical trials and was recently recommended as an option to measure signs in clinical practice. Here, we review the validation of the instrument using standard assessment criteria, explore controversies and challenges to its universal applicability and highlight future electronic adaptations. We find that the instrument demonstrates adequate performance in the measurement properties recommended by the COnsensus‐based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments initiative for instruments reporting clinical signs, is clinically interpretable, and is suitable for all atopic dermatitis severities. Some validation gaps remain. Information reporting on its performance in diverse populations, with emphasis on deeply pigmented skin, is promising though limited. Technological adaptations are demonstrating promising initial validation results and may facilitate remote and/or automated assessments assisting clinical care and decentralized clinical trials in the future. We find no strong evidence limiting its use in trials or clinical practice although questions pertaining to the effect of investigator training remain. We recommend that the Eczema Area and Severity Index be used in all interventional atopic dermatitis trials and be considered alongside other recommended clinical practice severity instruments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This report provides a summary of the third meeting of the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative held in San Diego, CA, U.S.A., 6-7 April 2013 (HOME III). The meeting addressed the four domains that had previously been agreed should be measured in every eczema clinical trial: clinical signs, patient-reported symptoms, long-term control and quality of life. Formal presentations and nominal group techniques were used at this working meeting, attended by 56 voting participants (31 of whom were dermatologists). Significant progress was made on the domain of clinical signs. Without reference to any named scales, it was agreed that the intensity and extent of erythema, excoriation, oedema/papulation and lichenification should be included in the core outcome measure for the scale to have content validity. The group then discussed a systematic review of all scales measuring the clinical signs of eczema and their measurement properties, followed by a consensus vote on which scale to recommend for inclusion in the core outcome set. Research into the remaining three domains was presented, followed by discussions. The symptoms group and quality of life groups need to systematically identify all available tools and rate the quality of the tools. A definition of long-term control is needed before progress can be made towards recommending a core outcome measure.

This document provides a summary of the Dutch S3-guidelines on the treatment of psoriasis. These guidelines were finalized in December 2011 and contain unique chapters on the treatment of psoriasis of the face and flexures, childhood psoriasis as well as the patient’s perspective on treatment. They also cover the topical treatment of psoriasis, photo(chemo)therapy, conventional systemic therapy and biological therapy.

Background: Evidence on the (long‐term) safety of systemic immunomodulating therapies in atopic dermatitis (AD) generated by real‐world data is sparse. Objectives: To describe real‐world reported adverse drug reactions (AEs) related to systemic immunomodulating therapy in patients with AD and to compare the incidence rates of AEs with the Summaries of Product Characteristics (SmPCs). Methods: We conducted an observational prospective multi‐centre cohort study, using the TREAT NL registry. All severe AEs, AEs of special interest and serious AEs in adult and paediatric patients on systemic immunomodulating treatment (ciclosporin, methotrexate, azathioprine, mycophenolic acid, dupilumab, tralokinumab, baricitinib and upadacitinib) were assessed. Incidences rates of all (potentially) drug‐related AEs were standardized in patient years and compared to the cumulative incidences in the associated SmPCs. Results: We collected 422 patient years of safety data from 266 patients, of whom 129 (48.5%) reported a total of 224 (potentially) drug‐related AEs. Compared to dupilumab's SmPC, higher incidence rates were found for four AEs (reported ≥5 times): eosinophilia, blepharitis, dry eyes and head and neck erythema (i.e. dupilumab facial redness). A higher incidence rate of fatigue was found in patients on oral methotrexate in our cohort compared to the SmPC. Two new drug‐related AEs (reported ≥5 times) were found in patients on dupilumab, including non‐infectious conjunctivitis and meibomian gland dysfunction. Conclusions: Real‐world reported AEs captured in AD patient registries can add information on the estimated incidence of AEs and benefit clinical decision aids. Future studies using data derived from the TREAT NL registry combined with data from other registries within the TREAT Registry Taskforce will provide more information on (rare) AEs associated with immunomodulating therapy in AD patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Phototherapy is used to treat atopic dermatitis (AD). Evidence for its efficacy, impact on quality of life, cost‐effectiveness and short‐ and long‐term safety with real‐life usage is weak. Objectives: We established a taskforce to examine how phototherapy is currently being used as a treatment for AD across the United Kingdom and Europe to inform our understanding and guide future research into management of patients with AD using UV‐based phototherapies. Methods: An anonymous electronic multiple‐response survey exploring phototherapy prescribing practices and experience of phototherapy modalities was developed by the study authors and sent to members of phototherapy networks from the United Kingdom and Europe. Responses were received between February and July 2021. Results: About 144 respondents from 27 European countries completed the survey. NBUVB was the most widely used [n = 138 (96%)]. Home‐based NBUVB was available in 8/27 countries (25/144 respondents, 17%). Oral psoralen‐UVA (PUVA) was more widely available than bath PUVA (n = 106, 74% vs. n = 60, 42%) and used mainly in adult patients. 49/144 (34%) of respondents had access to UVA1. Phototherapy would be considered instead of systemic treatment in 96% of adults and 82% of children for NBUVB, versus 40% of adults and 3% of children for PUVA. Starting doses, standard dosing increments, length of treatment courses, lifetime limits for treatments and thresholds for performing annual skin assessments varied between responders. Conclusions: NBUVB was the most widely used phototherapy for AD in adult and paediatric patients, while PUVA and UVA1 were less used. Prescribing practices varied considerably, highlighting the lack of consensus practice in many different aspects of phototherapy for the treatment of AD in children and adults. This indicates that further studies are required to determine optimal phototherapeutic regimens for AD and informs our understanding of parameters that should be included in future high‐quality randomized controlled trials (RCT) of phototherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]