Lowes, Michelle A

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.

AbstractBackgroundThe 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.ObjectiveTo 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.MethodsAn 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.ResultsForty‐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.ConclusionsThe 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.

Current validated hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) severity assessment tools are time-consuming and impractical in fast-paced, ambulatory clinic settings. This study evaluated the construct validity of the most severe or ‘worst’ area local Hidradenitis suppurativa Activity and Severity Index-Revised (W-HASI-R) as a novel target area assessment tool for clinical setting use. W-HASI-R had strong association with the International Hidradenitis Suppurativa Severity Score System and abscess and nodule count, moderate association with Hurley stage and HS physician global assessment and weak, negative association with reverse-scored Dermatology Quality Life Index. The resulting data suggest that W-HASI-R may be an option as an efficient target area assessment tool for fast-paced, ambulatory settings.

Skin thickness, as known as inflammatory induration, is a component in several HS grading instruments including the HASI and HASI-R. This study sought to evaluate how thickest lesion measurement (mm) corresponds to HS severity. This study demonstrates that inflammatory induration has moderate association with HS severity, thickest lesion measurement (mm) demonstrates known-validity across Hurley stages, and cut-offs for thickest lesion measurement (mm) were determined for inflammatory induration grading for the purpose of HASI-R training.

Abstract Background Validated, inclusive and easy‐to‐use outcomes for hidradenitis suppurativa are essential both in the clinical trial setting and clinical practice. The continuous IHS4 is a validated tool that dynamically assesses nodules/abscesses/draining tunnels and classifies disease severity as mild/moderate/severe. However, dichotomous outcomes are often required for clinical trials reporting. Objective To develop and validate a dichotomous outcome based on IHS4 that can be used in clinical trial settings and day‐to‐day clinical practice. Methods De‐identified data from the PIONEER‐I and ‐II studies were accessed through Vivli. Potential IHS4 thresholds were analysed using baseline to Week 12 data from adalimumab‐ and placebo‐treated hidradenitis suppurativa patients in the PIONEER‐I trial. The final threshold was chosen based on its ability to discriminate between patients treated with adalimumab or placebo and its association with reduction in inflammatory lesions. The final threshold was validated using data from baseline to Week 12 from adalimumab‐ and placebo‐treated hidradenitis suppurativa patients in both the PIONEER‐II and the combined PIONEER‐I and ‐II studies. Results The best performing cut‐off for the IHS4 was a 55% reduction of the IHS4 score (IHS4‐55). Patients who achieved the IHS4‐55 had an odd's ratio of 2.00 [95%‐CI 1.26–3.18, p = 0.003], 2.79 (95%‐CI 1.76–4.43, p < 0.001) and 2.16 (95%‐CI 1.43–3.29, p < 0.001) for being treated with adalimumab rather than placebo in PIONEER‐I, PIONEER‐II and the combined dataset, respectively. Additionally, the achievement of the IHS4‐55 was associated with a significant reduction in inflammatory nodules, abscesses and draining tunnels in all analysed datasets. Conclusions IHS4‐55, a novel dichotomous IHS4 version, based on a 55% reduction of the total score was developed. The IHS4‐55 performs similarly to the HiSCR in discriminating between adalimumab‐ and placebo‐treated hidradenitis suppurativa patients and shows significant associations with reductions in lesion counts. Moreover, the IHS4‐55 addresses some of the HiSCR drawbacks by dynamically including draining tunnels in a validated manner. By allowing the analysis of hidradenitis suppurativa patients with an abscess and nodule count below 3 but many draining tunnels, this outcome measure will improve inclusivity in clinical trials.

Abstract 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 &lt; 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 &lt; 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.

AbstractFor optimal management of hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), we propose a treat‐to‐target approach that synergizes medical and surgical therapies to improve outcomes and health‐related quality of life for HS patients. Studies are required to define the optimal targets in HS, however, proposed targets include disease remission or low disease activity. The goals of medical therapy in HS are to reduce existing inflammation and to prevent disease progression. The goals of surgical therapy are removal of permanently damaged fibrotic tissue and removal of biofilm within tunnels. In a treat‐to‐target approach, medical and surgical modalities are combined to optimize HS management. Regular and close monitoring are required to assess treatment response and achieve the predetermined target. Adjustments to the treatment plan can be made until the predetermined target is achieved. Research is needed to establish and evaluate this treat‐to‐target approach to help patients improve quality of life and achieve optimal disease control, and ultimately, disease remission.

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.