Tzellos, Thrasyvoulos

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.

AbstractIntroductionThe International Hidradenitis Suppurativa Severity Score System (IHS4) is a validated tool that measures inflammatory lesions, including draining tunnels, in hidradenitis suppurativa (HS).ObjectiveTo evaluate secukinumab efficacy using IHS4 in patients with moderate to severe HS.MethodsData from the SUNSHINE and SUNRISE trials, which assessed subcutaneous secukinumab 300 mg every 2 (SECQ2W) and 4 (SECQ4W) weeks in adults with moderate to severe HS, were analyzed. Assessments included changes from baseline in IHS4 and severity classification up to Week 52; IHS4‐55, IHS4‐75, IHS4‐90 responses (55%, 75% and 90% reduction in IHS4) and concordance between IHS4‐55 and HS clinical response (HiSCR), at Weeks 16 and 52.ResultsIn total, 1084 patients (SECQ2W = 361; SECQ4W = 360; placebo = 363) were analyzed. At Week 16, SECQ2W and SECQ4W demonstrated a numerically higher reduction in IHS4 from baseline versus placebo (adjusted mean [95% CI]: −10.80 [−12.30 to −9.30] and −9.46 [−10.96 to −7.96] vs. −4.92 [−6.43 to −3.41]); the reduction was maintained until Week 52 in both dose regimens. A greater proportion of patients achieved IHS4‐55 with SECQ2W (43.4%) and SECQ4W (39.5%) versus placebo (31.5%) at Week 16, with further improvement at Week 52. Similar trends were observed for IHS4‐75 and IHS4‐90 responses. While no patients had mild disease based on IHS4 (80.7% had severe and 19.3% had moderate HS) at baseline, a greater proportion of patients were categorized as having mild disease at Week 16 in the SECQ2W (25.9%) and SECQ4W (24.0%) groups versus placebo (16.4%); this trend continued up to Week 52 in both dose regimens. Strong concordance (>85%) was observed between IHS4‐55 and HiSCR.ConclusionsBoth SECQ2W and SECQ4W demonstrated efficacy in improving treatment response as measured by IHS4 and reducing disease severity versus placebo at Week 16 and these improvements were sustained through Week 52. These findings support that the dynamic and dichotomous IHS4 can efficiently detect treatment response changes in clinical trial settings.Clinical Trials RegistrationSUNSHINE (NCT03713619); SUNRISE (NCT03713632).

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.

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.

Abstract Objective Behçet's disease ( BD ) is a chronic, relapsing, inflammatory vascular disease with no pathognomonic test. Low sensitivity of the currently applied International Study Group ( ISG ) clinical diagnostic criteria led to their reassessment. Methods An International Team for the Revision of the International Criteria for BD (from 27 countries) submitted data from 2556 clinically diagnosed BD patients and 1163 controls with BD ‐mimicking diseases or presenting at least one major BD sign. These were randomly divided into training and validation sets. Logistic regression, ‘leave‐one‐country‐out’ cross‐validation and clinical judgement were employed to develop new International Criteria for BD ( ICBD ) with the training data. Existing and new criteria were tested for their performance in the validation set. Results For the ICBD , ocular lesions, oral aphthosis and genital aphthosis are each assigned 2 points, while skin lesions, central nervous system involvement and vascular manifestations 1 point each. The pathergy test, when used, was assigned 1 point. A patient scoring ≥4 points is classified as having BD . In the training set, 93.9% sensitivity and 92.1% specificity were assessed compared with 81.2% sensitivity and 95.9% specificity for the ISG criteria. In the validation set, ICBD demonstrated an unbiased estimate of sensitivity of 94.8% (95% CI : 93.4–95.9%), considerably higher than that of the ISG criteria (85.0%). Specificity (90.5%, 95% CI : 87.9–92.8%) was lower than that of the ISG ‐criteria (96.0%), yet still reasonably high. For countries with at least 90%‐of‐cases and controls having a pathergy test, adding 1 point for pathergy test increased the estimate of sensitivity from 95.5% to 98.5%, while barely reducing specificity from 92.1% to 91.6%. Conclusion The new proposed criteria derived from multinational data exhibits much improved sensitivity over the ISG criteria while maintaining reasonable specificity. It is proposed that the ICBD criteria to be adopted both as a guide for diagnosis and classification of BD .