Alhusayen, Raed

Importance Currently, there are no standardized outcome domains or measures in clinical trials for facial aging. Heterogeneity in outcome domains and measurement instruments across clinical trials creates difficulty in directly comparing interventions, determining superior therapies, and developing high-quality meta-analyses. Objective To develop a core outcome set (COS) of essential domains to be reported in clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of interventions for facial aging. Evidence Review PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL were searched from September 2005 to September 2015. An updated search of the same databases was performed from September 2015 to February 2026. Studies were included if (1) they were randomized clinical trial or controlled clinical trial in design, (2) they assessed the efficacy or safety of an intervention for facial aging, (3) they were published in English, and (4) they involved human participants. Complementary sources, including patient interviews, were used to capture further relevant outcomes. Two rounds of Delphi surveys, followed by consensus meetings, were used to identify outcome domains considered most important by both patient and physician stakeholders. Findings The final COS consists of 6 outcome domains: (1) overall convenience of treatment; (2) time to return to normal work and social activity; (3) overall assessment of focused area of treatment (at the point in time when treatment is expected to provide peak benefit); (4) duration of treatment effect; (5) severity of persistent local or systemic adverse events, including pigmentary change, skin texture change, delayed healing, scarring, and serious adverse events; and (6) patient satisfaction with treatment. Conclusions and Relevance The 6 outcome domains identified through a Delphi consensus are recommended for reporting in future facial aging trials to ensure that outcomes that matter most to patients and clinicians are measured and that results are comparable across interventions.

Importance Accurate classification and reliability in assessment for lesions of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) by investigators is critical to the determination of responder status and to overall data quality in clinical trials. Objective To establish consensus-based morphological definitions of HS lesions and guidance statements that standardize investigator lesion assessments for implementation in clinical trials. Evidence Review Health professionals (primarily dermatologists) with expertise in the measurement of HS disease activity as well as novice raters completed a preliminary questionnaire in which participants were asked to assess images of HS lesions and provide qualitative feedback on their decision making. Based on this feedback, detailed morphologic definitions for lesions and guidance statements that standardize lesion assessments were formulated and presented for consensus voting in 2 electronic Delphi surveys. A virtual group discussion after round 1 supported participants in round 2 voting. Findings Response rates were 84.7% (50 of 59), 86.0% (43 of 50), and 90.9% (40 of 44) in the preliminary, electronic Delphi round 1, and electronic Delphi round 2 surveys, respectively. Morphological definitions for 11 lesion types achieved the prespecified 70% consensus threshold, with 9 definitions reaching at least 90% agreement. After 2 electronic Delphi rounds, 16 of 18 guidance statements achieved the prespecified consensus threshold, with 13 statements receiving endorsement from more than 80% of participants. Two guidance statements related to assessment of tunneled plaques with multiple openings and assessment of scalp lesions failed to reach consensus. Conclusions and Relevance Common morphologic definitions and guidance that standardize assessment of HS lesions can be implemented in clinical trial protocols and investigator trainings with the goals of improving accuracy and reliability of investigator ratings.

Abstract Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic and often debilitating inflammatory condition characterized by frequent nodules, abscesses, sinus tracts, and scars impacting the intertriginous areas. Many patients with HS often report limited treatment success and symptom coverage with conventional therapies. Recent studies have reported the widespread use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) among patients with HS. In this study, our aim was to examine current physician practice patterns, opinions, and comfort with recommending CAM. Our results indicate that provider comfort and opinions on CAM varied based on the provider's experiences, demographics, and the CAM modality itself. Overall, nearly two‐thirds (n = 30, 61.2%) of respondents agreed that CAM and conventional medicine were more effective together than either alone. Meanwhile, 44.9% (n = 22) of respondents routinely recommend CAM while 64.6% (n = 31) of respondents reported that they are routinely asked about CAM. The majority (n = 41, 83.7%) of respondents indicated a lack of scientific evidence in the medical literature as a barrier to recommending CAM along with efficacy concerns (n = 34, 69.4%) and ability to recommend reputable CAM products (n = 32, 65.3%) and practitioners (n = 32, 65.3%). Future investigations are warranted to establish a better understanding of the efficacy and benefit of CAM methods in conjunction with conventional methods.