Back to Authors

Oza, Vikash S.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9102-0773

Mayo Clinic

New York University

Citations 4

Development and Validation of the Morphea Activity Measure in Patients With Pediatric Morphea
García‐Romero, María Teresa , Tollefson, Megha M. , Brandling‐Bennett, Heather A. , Keimig, E., Arkin, Lisa M. , Humphrey, Stephen R. , Oza, Vikash S. , Jacobe, Heidi , Fett, Nicole , Vera, Isabel , Garcia-Romero, Maria Teresa , Pope, Elena , Paller, Amy S. , Wanat, Karolyn A. , Werth, Victoria P. , Cordoro, Kelly M. , Chiu, Yvonne E.

JAMA Dermatology | February 8, 2023 | Volume: 159 | Issue: 3 | Pages: 299

10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.6365 Get It

ImportanceMorphea is an insidious inflammatory disorder of the skin and deeper tissues. Determining disease activity is challenging yet important to medical decision-making and patient outcomes.ObjectiveTo develop and validate a scoring tool, the Morphea Activity Measure (MAM), to evaluate morphea disease activity of any type or severity that is easy to use in clinical and research settings.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis pilot diagnostic study was conducted from September 9, 2019, to March 6, 2020, in 2 phases: development and validation. During the development phase, 14 morphea experts (dermatologists and pediatric dermatologists) used a Delphi consensus method to determine items that would be included in the MAM. The validation phase included 8 investigators who evaluated the tool in collaboration with 14 patients with pediatric morphea (recruited from a referral center [Medical College of Wisconsin]) during a 1-day in-person meeting on March 6, 2020.Main Outcomes and MeasuresDuring the development phase, online survey items were evaluated by experts in morphea using a Likert scale (score range, 0-10, with 0 indicating not important and 10 indicating very important); agreement was defined as a median score of 7.0 or higher, disagreement as a median score of 3.9 or lower, and no consensus as a median score of 4.0 to 6.9. During the validation phase, reliability (interrater and intrarater agreement using intraclass correlation coefficients), validity (using the content validity index and κ statistics as well as correlations with the modified Localized Scleroderma Severity Index and the Physician Global Assessment of Activity using Spearman ρ coefficients), and viability (using qualitative interviews of investigators who used the MAM tool) were evaluated. Descriptive statistics were used for quantitative variables. Data on race and ethnicity categories were collected but not analyzed because skin color was more relevant for the purposes of this study.ResultsAmong 14 survey respondents during the development phase, 9 (64.3%) were pediatric dermatologists and 5 (35.7%) were dermatologists. After 2 rounds, a final tool was developed comprising 10 items that experts agreed were indicative of morphea activity (new lesion in the past 3 months, enlarging lesion in the past 3 months, linear lesion developing progressive atrophy in the past 3 months, erythema, violaceous rim or color, warmth to the touch, induration, white-yellow or waxy appearance, shiny white wrinkling, and body surface area). The validation phase was conducted with 14 patients (median age, 14.5 years [range, 8.0-18.0 years]; 8 [57.1%] female), 2 dermatologists, and 6 pediatric dermatologists. Interrater and intrarater agreement for MAM total scores was good, with intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.844 (95% CI, 0.681-0.942) for interrater agreement and 0.856 (95% CI, 0.791-0.901) for intrarater agreement. Correlations between the MAM and the modified Localized Scleroderma Severity Index (Spearman ρ = 0.747; P < .001) and the MAM and the Physician Global Assessment of Activity (Spearman ρ = 0.729; P < .001) were moderately strong. In qualitative interviews, evaluators agreed that the tool was easy to use, measured morphea disease activity at a single time point, and should be responsive to changes in morphea disease activity over multiple time points.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this study, the MAM was found to be a reliable, valid, and viable tool to measure pediatric morphea activity. Further testing to assess validity in adults and responsiveness to change is needed.
Systemic immunosuppressive therapy for inflammatory skin diseases in children: Expert consensus‐based guidance for clinical decision‐making during the COVID‐19 pandemic
Reynolds, Sean , Mathur, Anubhav , Chiu, Yvonne E. , Brandling‐Bennett, Heather A. , Holland, Kristen E. , Siegfried, Elaine C. , Tom, Wynnis L. , Tollefson, Megha M. , Eichenfield, Lawrence F. , Sugarman, Jeffrey, Frieden, Ilona J. , Oza, Vikash S. , Cipriano, Sarah D. , Shah, Sonal D. , Lauren, Christine T. , Reynolds, Sean D , Siegfried, Elaine C , Lara-Corrales, Irene , Maguiness, Sheilagh , Eichenfield, Lawrence F , Lauren, Christine T , Castelo-Soccio, Leslie , Cordoro, Kelly M , Chiu, Yvonne E , Pope, Elena , Siegel, Michael P. , Paller, Amy S. , Maguiness, Sheilagh , Sugarman, Jeffrey, Huang, Jennifer T. , Castelo‐Soccio, Leslie , McMahon, Patrick, Cordoro, Kelly M.

Pediatric Dermatology | April 22, 2020 | Volume: 37 | Issue: 3 | Pages: 424-434

10.1111/pde.14202 Get It

AbstractBackground/ObjectivesThe COVID‐19 pandemic has raised questions about the approach to management of systemic immunosuppressive therapies for dermatologic indications in children. Change to: Given the absence of data to address concerns related to SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and systemic immunosuppressive therapies in an evidence‐based manner, a Pediatric Dermatology COVID‐19 Response Task Force (PDCRTF) was assembled to offer time‐sensitive guidance for clinicians.MethodsA survey was distributed to an expert panel of 37 pediatric dermatologists on the PDCRTF to assess expert opinion and current practice related to three primary domains of systemic therapy: initiation, continuation, and laboratory monitoring.ResultsNearly all respondents (97%) reported that the COVID‐19 pandemic had impacted their decision to initiate immunosuppressive medications. The majority of pediatric dermatologists (87%) reported that they were pausing or reducing the frequency of laboratory monitoring for certain immunosuppressive medications. In asymptomatic patients, continuing therapy was the most popular choice across all medications queried. The majority agreed that patients on immunosuppressive medications who have a household exposure to COVID‐19 or test positive for new infection should temporarily discontinue systemic and biologic medications, with the exception of systemic steroids, which may require tapering.ConclusionsThe ultimate decision regarding initiation, continuation, and laboratory monitoring of immunosuppressive therapy during the pandemic requires careful deliberation, consideration of the little evidence available, and discussion with families. Consideration of an individual's adherence to COVID‐19 preventive measures, risk of exposure, and the potential severity if infected must be weighed against the dermatological disease, medication, and risks to the patient of tapering or discontinuing therapies.
Three-Day-Old Boy With Palmar Pustules
Oza, Vikash S. , Asch, Sarah , Mathes, Erin F.

JAMA Pediatrics | February 2, 2016 | Volume: 170 | Issue: 2 | Pages: 171

10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.1996 Get It