Sayed, Christopher

Abstract Background The results of a previous phase IIa trial suggested efficacy of the anti-C5a compound vilobelimab in a small number of patients with severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) refractory to adalimumab treatment. Objectives To study the efficacy of vilobelimab in a larger-scale randomized phase IIb trial (SHINE) of patients with moderate-to-severe HS. Methods In total, 177 patients with moderate-to-severe HS were treated either with placebo or one of four doses of vilobelimab, a monoclonal antibody that targets the complement split product C5a. Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR) at 16 weeks was the primary endpoint. Those who achieved HiSCR switched to open-label low-dose vilobelimab; those who did not were switched to medium-dose vilobelimab. The trial was registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT number 2017-004501-40) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03487276). Results The study did not meet the primary endpoint, perhaps due, in part, to an unexpectedly high HiSCR placebo response rate of 47.1%. HS flares decreased and post hoc analysis showed that high-dose vilobelimab significantly decreased the median draining tunnel counts and IHS4 score by 63%. Following the switch to medium-dose vilobelimab at week 16, 45.5% of those who did not respond to treatment achieved HiSCR at week 40. Conclusions Compared with placebo, vilobelimab treatment did not result in significant HiSCR improvements in patients with moderate-to-severe HS. Post hoc analysis revealed significant effects for the highest tested dose on draining tunnel reduction and IHS4 score, which captures reductions in draining tunnels. These findings warrant further investigation.

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.

SummaryBackground and aimsExtra‐intestinal manifestations (EIMs) are a common complication of inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), affecting up to half of the patients. Despite their high prevalence, information on standardised definitions, diagnostic strategies, and treatment targets is limited.MethodsAs a starting point for a national EIM study network, an interdisciplinary expert panel of 12 gastroenterologists, 4 rheumatologists, 3 ophthalmologists, 6 dermatologists, and 4 patient representatives was assembled. Modified Delphi consensus methodology was used. Fifty‐four candidate items were derived from the literature review and expert opinion focusing on five major EIMs (erythema nodosum, pyoderma gangrenosum, uveitis, peripheral arthritis, and axial arthritis) were rated in three voting rounds.ResultsFor use in a clinical practice setting and as part of the creation of a prospective registry of patients with EIMs, the panel developed definitions for erythema nodosum, pyoderma gangrenosum, uveitis, peripheral arthritis, and axial arthritis; identified the appropriate and optimal subspecialists to diagnose and manage each; provided methods to monitor disease course; offered guidance regarding monitoring intervals; and defined resolution and recurrence.ConclusionsConsensus criteria for appropriate and optimal means of diagnosing and monitoring five EIMs have been developed as a starting point to inform clinical practice and future trial design. Key findings include straightforward diagnostic criteria, guidance regarding who can appropriately and optimally diagnose each, and monitoring options that include patient and physician‐reported outcomes. These findings will be used in a national multicenter study network to optimise the management of EIMs.