Advertisement

Safe Psoriasis Control: A New Outcome Measure for the Composite Assessment of the Efficacy and Safety of Psoriasis Treatment

  • Kim A. Papp
  • Eric Henninger
Article

Abstract

Background

PASI is an inadequate outcome measure for the assessment of psoriasis treatments. No currently used endpoints provide a benefit: risk assessment of treatment taking into consideration all available efficacy and safety data.

Objective

To propose a new outcome measure called “safe psoriasis control” (SPC), which assesses multiple dimensions of the disease in a clinically meaningful way through the combined use of appropriate efficacy, quality of life, and safety data.

Methods

Data from 3,500 subjects were used for the purpose of derivation and validation of the SPC endpoint. Advanced statistical methodology was used to evaluate and validate important components in the assessment of therapeutic benefit.

Results

SPC was shown to be a simple but meaningful combined endpoint showing the proportion of patients who had treatment benefit without major side effects.

Conclusion

The SPC endpoint may be a step-forward in providing a composite tool for the evaluation of treatments for psoriasis.

Keywords

Psoriasis Dermatology Life Quality Index Efalizumab Physician Global Assessment Psoriasis Treatment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Sommaire

Antécédents

Le PASI est un élément de mesure inadéquat pour l’évaluation des traitements du psoriasis. Aucun paramètre utilisé actuellement ne permet d’évaluer le ratio bénéfice/risque d’un traitement en tenant compte de toutes les données concernant l’efficacité et l’innocuité.

Objectif

Proposer une nouvelle mesure, appelée «Contrôle sécuritaire du psoriasis» (CSP), qui évalue plusieurs dimensions de la maladie, de façon significative du point de vue clinique, au moyen de données sur l’efficacité, la qualité de vie et l’innocuité.

Méthodes

Des données sur 3 500 sujets ont été utilisées pour fin de calcul et de validation des paramètres du CSP. Une méthodologie statistique avancée a servi à évaluer et à valider des composantes essentielles à l’évaluation de l’avantage thérapeutique.

Résultats

Le CSP s’est avéré une combinaison simple mais efficace de paramètres qui permet d’obtenir la proportion de patients ayant bénéficié du traitement sans avoir subi des effets secondaires importants.

Conclusion

Le CSP peut être un pas en avant vers la création d’un outil composite de l’évaluation des traitements du psoriasis.

References:

  1. 1.
    Gottlieb AB. Psoriasis. Dis Manag Clin Outcomes 1998; 1(6):195–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rapp SR, Feldman SR, Exum ML, et al. Psoriasis causes as much disability as other major medical diseases. J Am Acad Dermatol 1999; 41(3 Pt 1):401–407PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jacobson CC, Kimball AB. Rethinking the psoriasis area and severity index: the impact of area should be increased. Br J Dermatol 2004; 151:381–387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carlin CS, Feldman SR, Krueger JG, et al. A 50% reduction in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI 50) is a clinically significant endpoint in the assessment of psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol 2004; 50(6):859–866PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    de Arruda LHF, De Moraes APF. The impact of psoriasis on quality of life. Br J Dermatol 2001; 144 (Suppl 58):33–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kirby B, Richards HL, Woo P, et al. Physical and psychologic measures are necessary to assess overall psoriasis severity. J Am Acad Dermatol 2001; 45(1):72–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Koo J, Menter A. The Koo–Menter psoriasis instrument for identifying candidate patients for systemic therapy. In: Poster presented at the 9th International Psoriasis Symposium, New York, June 18–22, 2003Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Al Suwaidan SN, Feldman SR. Clearance is not a realistic expectation of psoriasis treatment. J Am Acad Dermatol 2000; 42(5 Pt 1):796–802PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Griffiths CEM, Sterry W, Henninger E. Safe control of psoriasis: evaluation of a new approach to assessing efficacy of psoriasis treatments. JEADV 2004; 18(suppl.2):355 (Ref. P06.106)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fredriksson T, Pettersson U. Severe psoriasis—oral therapy with a new retinoid. Dermatologica 1978; 157:238–244PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Finlay AY, Khan GK. Dermatology life quality index (DLQI)—a simple practical measure for routine clinical use. Clin Exp Dermatol 1994; 19(3):210–216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, et al. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47:81–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in Health Status. Med Care 1989; 27:3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Earlbaum, 1988Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kirby B, Fortune DG, Bhushan M, et al. The salford psoriasis index: an holistic measure of psoriasis severity. Br J Dermatol 2000; 142:728–732PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zachariae R, Zachariae H, blomqvist K, et al. Quality of life in 6,497 Nordic patients with psoriasis. Br J Dermatol 2002; 146:1006–1016PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Note for Guidance on Clinical Investigation of Medicinal Products indicated for the Treatment of Psoriasis. Draft published by EMEA/CPMP on 20 November 2003Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mckenna KE, Stern RS. The outcomes movement and new measures of the severity of psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol 1996; 34(3):534–538PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Touw CR, Hakkaart-Van Roijen L, Verboom P, et al. Quality of life and clinical outcome in psoriasis patients using intermittent cyclosporin. Br J Dermatol 2001; 144(5):967–972PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Krueger GG, Feldman SR, Camisa C, et al. Two considerations for patients with psoriasis and their clinicians: what defines mild, moderate, and severe psoriasis? What constitutes a clinically significant improvement when treating psoriasis? J Am Acad Dermatol 2000; 43(2 Pt 1):281–285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bateman ED, Bousquet J, Braunstein GL. Is overall asthma control being achieved? A hypothesis-generating study. Eur Respir J 2001; 17:589–595PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bateman ED, Frith LF, Braunstein GL. Achieving guideline-based asthma control: does the patient benefit? Eur Respir J 2001; 20:588–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Griffiths CEM, Sterry W, Henninger E. Safe control of psoriasis: evaluation of a new approach to assessing efficacy of psoriasis treatments. JEADV 2004; 18(suppl. 2):355 (Ref. P06.106)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kim A. Papp
    • 1
  • Eric Henninger
    • 2
  1. 1.Probity Medical ResearchWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.Serono International S.A. 15bisGeneva 20Switzerland

Personalised recommendations