Kirby, Joslyn S.

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 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.