Abstract
Introduction
Despite the existence of multiple assessment scores for psoriasis severity, skin disease with limited skin lesions but significant impairment of quality of life can be difficult to classify, leading to under- or overtreatment. Our objective was to obtain consensus on clinical criteria to classify psoriasis severity in French clinical practice, with a focus on moderate disease, using a modified Delphi method.
Methods
A steering committee (SC) formulated a 22-item questionnaire to classify moderate psoriasis. An independent panel of French dermatologists indicated their level of agreement for each item using a 9-point Likert scale (round 1). Items without a strong consensus were modified and included in round 2. For each item, strong consensus was defined as at least 75% of scores ≥ 7 and median score ≥ 8; good consensus was defined as at least 75% of scores ≥ 7 or median score ≥ 8.
Results
Of 80 dermatologists who agreed to participate, 47 (59%) responded in round 1. All participants from round 1 responded in round 2. Fifteen (68%) items achieved strong consensus and four (18%) achieved good consensus. For psoriasis severity, several clinical dimensions assessed both by the physician (location, symptoms, temporality, previous treatments) and the patient (perception, physical and psychological impairment) obtained consensus. The following were considered sufficient to confirm that psoriasis is at least at a moderate stage: limited involvement but with an impact on patient/family quality of life; involvement of a special area; presence of uncontrolled symptoms (scaling, bleeding, pruritus, insomnia); accumulation of mild intensity symptoms; presence of burdensome onychodystrophy; failure of well-applied topical treatments. There was strong consensus that recognition of moderate psoriasis should lead to reassessment of topical treatments.
Conclusion
Our modified Delphi panel suggests detailed criteria to help physicians classify patients with psoriasis which is at least at a moderate stage, which could, in turn, improve treatment in these patients.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Why carry out this study? |
Assessment of the severity of psoriatic disease is an essential part of the treatment decision, guiding treatment options to limit therapeutic inertia. |
On the basis of literature analysis and experience from a panel of French dermatologists, we used a modified Delphi consensus method to identify clinical criteria to better classify psoriasis at least at a moderate stage. |
What was learned from the study? |
We were able to propose items not relying on numerical scores, as PASI and BSA are not always used in routine clinical practice. |
Strong consensus was reached on criteria considered sufficient to classify psoriasis at least at a moderate stage. |
The recognition of psoriasis as moderate should lead to reassessment of topical treatments as monotherapy. |
Introduction
Assessment of the severity of psoriatic disease is an essential part of the treatment decision. The International Psoriasis Committee (IPC) recently proposed stratification of patients into two levels, those for whom topical treatment is appropriate and those for whom systemic treatment is necessary to control the disease [1]. However, this pragmatic approach is not yet applied in clinical trials and many treatment recommendations continue to rely on three classes of disease severity: mild, moderate, and severe [2,3,4]. While there is good agreement between physicians and patients when defining mild and severe, agreement regarding the criteria for moderate disease is lacking [5,6,7]. Moreover, the moderate threshold is frequently used to determine eligibility for systemic treatment [8, 9].
Our objective was to identify clinical criteria to better classify moderate psoriasis and help dermatologists adapt their treatment choices for patients in this group [10,11,12,13]. On the basis of literature analysis and experience from French dermatologists, we used a modified Delphi consensus method toward this goal.
Methods
The Delphi method is an iterative consensus approach based on information collected from a panel of participants with expertise in the subject under consideration [14,15,16,17,18,19,20]. In recent years, this approach has been widely used in dermatology [21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28], particularly in psoriasis [1, 9, 29,30,31,32].
In accordance with French and international methodologies [14,15,16,17, 33, 34], our study was structured as a modified Delphi national consensus conducted with a panel of French dermatologists from January 2021 to April 2021 (Fig. 1). Expert opinion was obtained during two rounds of scoring on a questionnaire written by a steering committee (SC). This study did not require an institutional review board (IRB) approval according to French regulation for studies not involving human participants (RNIPH) (https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000034634217).
Steering Committee (SC) and Proposed Items
The SC included six experts, moderated by the last author of this article. At the first virtual SC meeting, held in October 2020, the SC discussed the recent literature (2018–2020 period) and latest international recommendations [1,2,3,4, 8, 35] on the assessment and severity of moderate psoriasis, and their own clinical experience. The SC then formulated a 22-item questionnaire to assess psoriasis severity and define moderate psoriasis in daily practice.
Delphi Panel
Individuals were invited to participate on the Delphi panel between February and March 2021 via an email with a website link.
To ensure a high level of expertise in psoriasis management and widespread representation (hospital-based/private/mixed practice), the panel participants were selected in two ways. Forty dermatologists with mostly hospital-based or mixed hospital-based activity were short-listed by the SC on the basis of experience, acquired knowledge and expertise in psoriasis, speakers at national conferences, or involvement in projects on psoriasis. To extend the panel participants to dermatologists in private practice, the French Federation for Continuing Education and Evaluation in Venereology Dermatology (FFFCEDV) invited its members (approximately 2500) to participate via email. Forty dermatologists answered this initial invitation and were included in the panel.
Voting Round 1
The panel participants indicated their level of agreement for each item in the questionnaire using a nine-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree) [33, 34, 36]. The percentage distribution of scores and the median score were calculated for each item in each voting round. Free text comments were permitted in round 1.
Strong consensus was reached for an item when at least 75% of the scores were ≥ 7 and the median score was ≥ 8. When only one of these two parameters was satisfied, the item was considered to have obtained good consensus [14, 15, 37].
The SC discussed the results of round 1 voting at a second virtual SC meeting held in March 2021. Items with a strong consensus were fully validated and included in the final recommendation. Items with a good consensus were discussed and proposed for the second round of voting only when, after analyzing the voters’ comments, the SC found more agreeable wording. Items without consensus were reformulated or modified on the basis of the free text comments and included in the second round of voting.
Voting Round 2
Round 2 occurred in April 2021. The questionnaire for round 2 had no free text. An “I don’t know” option was added to the possible responses; when selected, this response was excluded from the final statistical analysis.
Ethical Aspect
All personal data collected for the study were dissociated from the results and anonymized in accordance with the French data protection law (GDPR).
Results
Participation in Voting Panel
The SC identified 40 hospital-based and mixed practice dermatologists with an outpatient psoriasis clinic for potential recruitment to the expert panel. In addition, 40 members of the FFFCEDV with special interest in psoriasis care were invited to participate. Of the 80 dermatologists contacted in round 1, 47 (59%) responded. All dermatologists who responded in round 1 responded in round 2, i.e., 100% response rate for round 2 (Fig. 2). Characteristics of the voting panel are shown in Table 1.
Questionnaire Items
In round 1 voting, 10 items reached a strong consensus and one reached a good consensus. Eleven items did not reach consensus in round 1, of which nine were reformulated by the SC for round 2 voting and two were not reformulated.
In round 2 voting, five items achieved a strong consensus, three achieved a good consensus, and one did not achieve consensus. Overall, 15 items (68.2%) achieved strong consensus, 4 (18.2%) achieved good consensus and 3 (13.6%) did not reach consensus. The distribution of votes and median values are presented in Tables 2 and 3.
General Psoriasis Severity Assessment
Table 2 summarizes the consensus reached for the nine items regarding the general assessment of psoriasis severity.
There was strong consensus on the following:
-
Assessment of psoriasis severity should consider several clinical dimensions, including location of dermatosis, symptoms, temporality of disease and previous treatments, and two patient-oriented dimensions, patient perception of disease severity and its psychological and functional impact.
-
Location alone is not sufficient to define psoriasis severity—the semiology of lesions, i.e., redness, scaling, infiltration and thickening of plaques, is necessary to categorize psoriasis, including moderate disease.
-
Intensity of pain and pruritus, and lack of disease control despite well-applied topical treatment, should also be considered when defining psoriasis severity.
-
A lack of patient-perceived control of psoriasis should lead to an exploration of the reasons for this and could motivate a change of treatment.
-
A single consultation is sufficient to intensify treatment in a known patient.
The following achieved good consensus:
-
The opinion of the patient should be given at least as much weight as that of the doctor.
-
A single consultation is sufficient to intensify treatment in a new patient for whom a well-applied treatment fails.
Assessment of Moderate Psoriasis
Table 3 summarizes the consensus reached for the 11 items deemed sufficient to classify psoriasis as at least at a moderate stage.
There was good consensus that validated questionnaires can be useful—but not necessary—in defining and managing moderate psoriasis.
Strong consensus was reached on several elements considered sufficient to classify psoriasis at least at a moderate stage (regardless of the clinical involvement observed by the dermatologist):
-
Involvement of a special area (nails, intergluteal fold, genitals, palmoplantar area, armpit, groin, face, scalp) with an impact on patient quality of life.
-
Presence of uncontrolled signs (scaling, bleeding, pruritus, insomnia) with an impact on patient quality of life or their caregivers; accumulation of symptoms of mild intensity; presence of burdensome onychodystrophy in the hands.
-
Impaired experience, altered sex life, psychological suffering induced by the disease.
There was also strong consensus that recognition of psoriasis as moderate should lead to reassessment of topical treatments as monotherapy.
There was good consensus that failure or inadequacy of well-applied topical treatments classifies the psoriasis at least at moderate stage.
Seeking numerous medical and excessive advice (“nomadism”) or dissatisfaction with local treatment (when applied correctly) was not considered sufficient to define at least moderate psoriasis without taking into account the clinical condition.
Discussion
Published European consensus defines moderate-to-severe psoriasis as psoriasis with Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) > 10 or body surface area (BSA > 10) and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) > 10, and mild psoriasis as psoriasis with PASI ≤ 10 and body surface area (BSA) ≤ 10 and DLQI ≤ 10 [9]. However, the distinction between mild and moderate psoriasis is not clear.
The diverse definitions of psoriasis severity [38], and the low use of clinical assessment scores in routine practice and differences in their interpretation [7], highlight the difficulty in assessing psoriasis severity. Such assessment is important in clinical practice, guiding treatment options, identifying situations where treatment intensification is necessary, and limiting therapeutic inertia.
We used a real-world Delphi consensus of dermatologists in France to identify clinical criteria to classify psoriasis severity, with a focus on moderate disease. Approximately two-thirds of our expert panel had mixed (hospital-based and private practice) or private practice activities, reflecting the diverse range of clinical settings in which patients with psoriasis are managed in France.
Our panel reached consensus on clinical criteria which could be used to assess psoriasis severity. These included clinical dimensions assessed both by the doctor (location, symptoms, temporality of disease, and previous treatments) and by the patient (perception and physical/psychological impairment). This consensus highlights the multifaceted nature of psoriasis, the inadequacy of using only the affected area to assess disease severity, and the need to consider different disease aspects to better identify patients with moderate psoriasis. Our panel also reached consensus that the use of scales or scores is not always necessary (absence of consensus in round 1) but is useful (strong consensus reached in round 2).
We proposed a category of “at least moderate” to define moderate psoriasis and our panel reached consensus on several items to recategorize mild psoriasis as moderate psoriasis. Specifically, our panel agreed the functional and symbolic impact of psoriasis (involvement of a special area, accumulation of symptoms of mild intensity, presence of onychodystrophy) and psychosocial impact should be used.
Our panel also agreed that patient-perceived lack of disease control should be a trigger for the dermatologist to reassess current treatment—either after a single follow-up consultation with a return patient or after two successive consultations with a new patient, unless a well-applied topical treatment fails in the latter. Several items reached consensus after reformulation; specifically, adding assessment of compliance with current treatment (particularly topical therapies) was an agreed prerequisite for any change in treatment, as observed when introducing this compliance criterion in the reformulation of items 6 and 21 between the two rounds.
Although the Delphi consensus is a structured procedure, it has limitations linked to the profile of the voting panel, the questionnaire, and the criteria considered to define consensus [39]. Our study tried to limit these potential biases. Our panel was composed of 47 participants. The suggested target number of participants in a consensus group is around 40, which is thought to be sufficiently robust to reflect a spectrum of opinions and experiences as well as to mitigate biases [15]. Participant selection was based on experience and expertise and our panel had a median career duration of 17.3 years, with 81% of the panel having participated in a psoriasis research project within the previous 5 years. Furthermore, all panelists completed both rounds of the Delphi consensus, demonstrating the panel’s engagement in our study.
Our study used a rigorous approach to define strong consensus and good consensus which provides strong credibility to the results: consensus rate (75% of responses ≥ 7) to assess the general level of agreement and the median (≥ 8) to assess the distribution of responses. Our study was conducted with continuous and complete separation between the panelist experts and members of the SC, who neither answered the questionnaires nor directly interacted with the expert panel.
Prior analysis of other European Delphi reports in psoriasis [1, 9, 29, 30, 32, 40] allowed us to select the main issues raised in dermatology practice. Furthermore, unlike approaches taken by the IPC and other Delphi panels [1, 9, 27, 32, 40], we were able to propose more refined questions without relying on numerical scores, which are not always used in clinical practice.
We restricted our Delphi panel to dermatologists. It would be interesting to collect comments from general practitioners, who are also involved in the management of psoriasis. It would be also interesting to collect comments from patients with psoriasis, as patient-reported outcomes could provide meaningful information regarding moderate psoriasis.
Conclusion
Our modified Delphi approach highlights the inherent variability in the clinical presentation of moderate psoriasis and confirms the need for clearer recommendations on assessing the severity of psoriasis. Moreover, we suggest a range of clinical criteria which could be used to better characterize psoriasis severity, with a focus on moderate disease.
References
Strober B, Ryan C, van de Kerkhof P, et al. Recategorization of psoriasis severity: Delphi consensus from the International Psoriasis Council. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;82(1):117–22.
Menter A, Korman NJ, Elmets CA, et al. Guidelines of care for the management of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: section 6. Guidelines of care for the treatment of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: case-based presentations and evidence-based conclusions. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011;65(1):137–74.
Llamas-Velasco M, de la Cueva P, Notario J, Martínez-Pilar L, Martorell A, Moreno-Ramírez D. Moderate psoriasis: a proposed definition. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2017;108(10):911–7.
Imafuku S, Zheng M, Tada Y, et al. Asian consensus on assessment and management of mild to moderate plaque psoriasis with topical therapy. J Dermatol. 2018;45(7):805–11.
Puzenat E, Bronsard V, Prey S, et al. What are the best outcome measures for assessing plaque psoriasis severity? A systematic review of the literature. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2010;24(s2):10–6.
Gourraud P-A, Le Gall C, Puzenat E, Aubin F, Ortonne J-P, Paul CF. Why statistics matter: limited inter-rater agreement prevents using the psoriasis area and severity index as a unique determinant of therapeutic decision in psoriasis. J Invest Dermatol. 2012;132(9):2171–5.
Knuckles MLF, Levi E, Soung J. Defining and treating moderate plaque psoriasis: a dermatologist survey. J Dermatol Treat. 2018;29(7):658–63.
Finlay AY, Reich K. Outcome assessment and treatment goals. Expert Rev Dermatol. 2008;3(sup1):S39-40.
Mrowietz U, Kragballe K, Reich K, et al. Definition of treatment goals for moderate to severe psoriasis: a European consensus. Arch Dermatol Res. 2011;303(1):1–10.
Augustin M, Sommer R, Kirsten N, et al. Topology of psoriasis in routine care: results from high-resolution analysis of 2009 patients. Br J Dermatol. 2019;181(2):358–65.
Lebwohl MG, Bachelez H, Barker J, et al. Patient perspectives in the management of psoriasis: results from the population-based Multinational Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Survey. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;70(5):871-881.e1-30.
Lebwohl M, Langley RG, Paul C, et al. Evolution of patient perceptions of psoriatic disease: results from the Understanding Psoriatic Disease Leveraging Insights for Treatment (UPLIFT) survey. Dermatol Ther. 2021;25:1–16.
Iversen L, Lange MM, Bissonette R, et al. Topical treatment of psoriasis: questionnaire results on topical therapy accessibility and influence of body surface area on usage. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017;31(7):1188–95.
Boulkedid R, Abdoul H, Loustau M, Sibony O, Alberti C. Using and reporting the Delphi method for selecting healthcare quality indicators: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(6): e20476.
Loblaw DA, Prestrud AA, Somerfield MR, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guidelines: formal systematic review-based consensus methodology. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(25):3136–40.
Diamond IR, Grant RC, Feldman BM, et al. Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(4):401–9.
Hasson F, Keeney S, McKenna H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs. 2000;32(4):1008–15.
Hsu C-C, Sandford B. The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2007;12:10.
Humphrey-Murto S, Varpio L, Wood TJ, et al. The use of the Delphi and other consensus group methods in medical education research: a review. Acad Med. 2017;92(10):1491–8.
Dalkey NC. The Delphi method: an experimental study of group opinion. Santa Monica: RAND; 1969.
Engelman D, Fuller LC, Steer AC. Consensus criteria for the diagnosis of scabies: a Delphi study of international experts. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12(5): e0006549.
Fanouriakis A, Kostopoulou M, Alunno A, et al. 2019 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann Rheum Dis. 2019;78(6):736–45.
Maverakis E, Ma C, Shinkai K, et al. Diagnostic criteria of ulcerative Pyoderma gangrenosum: a Delphi consensus of international experts. JAMA Dermatol. 2018;154(4):461–6.
Seminario-Vidal L, Kroshinsky D, Malachowski SJ, et al. Society of Dermatology Hospitalists supportive care guidelines for the management of Stevens–Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis in adults. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;82(6):1553–67.
Hatemi G, Christensen R, Bang D, et al. 2018 update of the EULAR recommendations for the management of Behçet’s syndrome. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018;77(6):808–18.
Elman SA, Joyce C, Nyberg F, et al. Development of classification criteria for discoid lupus erythematosus: results of a Delphi exercise. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;77(2):261–7.
Pereira MP, Steinke S, Zeidler C, et al. European academy of dermatology and venereology European prurigo project: expert consensus on the definition, classification and terminology of chronic prurigo. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2018;32(7):1059–65.
Sastre J, Baldrich ES, Armario Hita JC, et al. Consensus on the clinical approach to moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis in Spain: a Delphi survey. Dermatol Res Pract. 2020;2020:1524293.
Daudén E, Puig L, Ferrándiz C, Sánchez-Carazo JL, Hernanz-Hermosa JM. Consensus document on the evaluation and treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis: Psoriasis Group of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2016;30(Suppl 2):1–18.
Carrascosa JM, Belinchón I, Rivera R, Ara M, Bustinduy M, Herranz P. The use of apremilast in psoriasis: a Delphi study. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2020;111(2):115–34.
Fahim C, Kim BW, Bourcier M, et al. Checklist for the systemic treatment of psoriasis using biologics: a Delphi study. J Cutan Med Surg. 2019;23(3):282–8.
Armstrong AW, Siegel MP, Bagel J, et al. From the Medical Board of the National Psoriasis Foundation: treatment targets for plaque psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76(2):290–8.
Haute Autorité de Santé HAS. Recommandations pour la pratique clinique (RPC). Saint-Denis La Plaine; 2020. https://www.has-sante.fr/jcms/c_431294/fr/recommandations-pour-la-pratique-clinique-rpc. Accessed 4 Nov 2020.
Letrilliart L, Milliat-Guittard L, Romestaing P, Schott AM, Berthoux N, Colin C. Building a shared patient record for breast cancer management: a French Delphi study. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2009;18(2):131–9.
Amatore F, Villani A-P, Tauber M, Guillot B, Viguier M. French guidelines on the use of systemic treatments for moderate-to-severe psoriasis in adults. Ann Dermatol Venereol. 2019;146(6–7):429–39.
McMillan SS, King M, Tully MP. How to use the nominal group and Delphi techniques. Int J Clin Pharm. 2016;38(3):655–62.
Koene S, van Bon L, Bertini E, et al. Outcome measures for children with mitochondrial disease: consensus recommendations for future studies from a Delphi-based international workshop. J Inherit Metab Dis. 2018;41(6):1267–73.
Augustin M, Langenbruch A, Gutknecht M, et al. Definition of psoriasis severity in routine clinical care: current guidelines fail to capture the complexity of long-term psoriasis management. Br J Dermatol. 2018;179(6):1385–91.
Skinner R, Nelson RR, Chin WW, Land L. The Delphi method research strategy in studies of information systems. Commun Assoc Inf Syst. 2015;37:2.
Salgado-Boquete L, Carrascosa JM, Llamas-Velasco M, Ruiz-Villaverde R, de la Cueva P, Belinchón I. A new classification of the severity of psoriasis: what’s moderate psoriasis? Life (Basel). 2021;11(7):627.
Acknowledgements
The authors are very grateful to all the dermatologists who took part in the Delphi rounds for their contribution. They thank the FFFCEDV (French Federation for Continuing Education and Evaluation in Dermatology and Venereology) board and their president, Dr. Nicole Jouan, for inviting their members to be part of the rating group.
Funding
Amgen funded the study, the journal’s rapid service and open access fees.
Medical Writing and Editorial Assistance
Medical writing services were provided by Nicolas Gaudin of Medical Education Corpus and funded by Amgen France. The authors acknowledge the help of Claire Desborough (Amgen) for editing assistance.
Authorship
All named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this article, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, and have given their approval for this version to be published.
Author Contributions
Concept, Methodology, Analysis, Manuscript review and editing: Marie-Aleth Richard, François Aubin, Nathalie Beneton, Anne Bouloc, Anne-Claire Burzstejn, Vincent Descamps, Denis Jullien.
Disclosures
Marie-Aleth Richard has received consulting fees, payment or honoraria for lectures, advisory boards, educational events from Abbvie, Almirall, Amgen, Boehringer, BMS, Celgene, GSK, Janssen-Cilag, Leo Pharma, Lilly, MSD, Medac, Nordic, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, UCB. François Aubin has received consulting fees, payment or honoraria for lectures, educational events and/or support for attending meetings from Amgen, BMS, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Sanofi, Novartis, UCB, MSD and Abbvie. N. Beneton has received consulting fees or honoraria from Abbvie, Almirall, Amgen, Janssen, Leo Pharma, Lilly, Novartis. Anne Bouloc is an employee of Amgen France. Anne-Claire Bursztejn has received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, educational events or participation in advisory board for Novartis, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre Dermatologie, Lilly, Takeda, LEO Pharma, Janssen, Amgen and Abbvie. Vincent Descamps has received fees for consultancy, speaker fees and/or support for travel from Novartis, Sanofi, Lilly, Janssen, Abbvie, Celgene, Amgen and UCB. Denis Jullien has received payment or honoraria fees from Abbvie, Janssen, UCB, Novartis, Almirall, Lilly, MEDAC, Celgene, BMS, Amgen and Boehringer Ingelheim.
Compliance with Ethics Guidelines
This study protocol did not require an IRB approval according to French regulation for studies not involving human participants (RNIPH) (https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000034634217). Informed consent was obtained from all the participating panelists.
Data Availability
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available in the “Delphi Psoriasis modéré” repository.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Richard, MA., Aubin, F., Beneton, N. et al. Moderate Psoriasis in Clinical Practice: French Expert Consensus Using a Modified Delphi Method. Adv Ther 39, 5203–5215 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-022-02305-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-022-02305-z