Discrepancies in hidradenitis suppurativa lesion characterization by providers and patients

Author:

Greenlund Lindsey1ORCID,Herzog Claire1ORCID,Wendland Zachary23,Rypka Katelyn123,Frew John W.456,Kirby Joslyn S.7,Alavi Afsaneh8ORCID,Khalid Bisma2,Lowes Michelle A.9,Garg Amit1011ORCID,Marzano Angelo V.1213ORCID,Zouboulis Christos C.14ORCID,Tzellos Thrasyvoulos1516,Jaleel Tarannum17,Goldfarb Noah23ORCID

Affiliation:

1. University of Minnesota Medical School Minneapolis Minnesota USA

2. Department of Dermatology University of Minnesota Medical School Minneapolis Minnesota USA

3. Department of Dermatology Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System Minneapolis Minnesota USA

4. Laboratory of Translational Cutaneous Medicine Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research Sydney New South Wales Australia

5. Department of Dermatology Liverpool Hospital Sydney New South Wales Australia

6. University of New South Wales Sydney New South Wales Australia

7. Department of Dermatology Penn State Health Hershey Pennsylvania USA

8. Department of Dermatology Mayo Clinic Rochester Minnesota USA

9. Laboratory for Investigative Dermatology The Rockefeller University New York New York USA

10. Northwell Health New York New York USA

11. Department of Dermatology Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell New York New York USA

12. Dermatology Unit Fondazione IRCCS Cà Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico Milan Italy

13. Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation University of Milan Milan Italy

14. Departments of Dermatology, Venereology, Allergology and Immunology, Staedtisches Klinikum Dessau Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane and Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg Dessau Germany

15. Department of Dermatology Nordland Hospital Trust, NLSH Bodø Bodø Norway

16. Department of Clinical Medicine UiT The Arctic University of Norway TRomsø Norway

17. Department of Dermatology Duke University School of Medicine Durham North Carolina USA

Abstract

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.

Publisher

Wiley

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3