Szepietowski, Jacek C

Abstract Background Small vessel vasculitides (SVV) comprise a heterogeneous group of cutaneous SVV (CSVV) that can be skin‐limited or systemic. Given their diverse forms and symptoms and the lack of a standardized diagnostic approach, it is crucial to establish clear and consensus‐driven recommendations for diagnosis. Objectives To standardize diagnosis for the detection of the type, extent, potential causes or underlying conditions of CSVV. Methods International experts comprised the panel. The Delphi panel data was collected through two rounds of questionnaires. Agreement was measured using an 11‐point Likert scale (0 = strongly disagree, 10 = strongly agree). A 7‐vote minimum was required for agreement on each statement. Delphi panel statements scoring 3–7 were discussed during the meeting. Results 20 experts participated in the first round of the Delphi panel, while 17 experts took part in the second. They agreed that the diagnosis of CSVV relies on a combination of clinical manifestations, laboratory findings and histopathology. Palpable purpura on the lower extremities is recognized as the most reliable hallmark for most SVV and a sign of immune complex vasculitis. When the latter is suspected, a skin biopsy for direct immunofluorescence (DIF) should be obtained from an early, partially blanchable macule because the type of perivascular immunoglobulin is important for further diagnosis. The proper selection of biopsy sites for routine HE biopsy depends on the morphology of lesions. A comprehensive medical history and selected laboratory testing should be conducted to investigate organ involvement, potential causes and associated conditions. The extent of diagnostic procedures should be based on the severity, duration, systemic symptoms and recurrence of SVV. Conclusions Experts reached a strong consensus on the management of CSVV patients, culminating in the first International Consensus Statement for adult CSVV. This statement proposes a practical management algorithm and underscores the importance of collaboration in rare diseases management.

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 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 < 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 < 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.