Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Why Outcome Measures in Dermatology Are Becoming Patient Centric

  • Epidemiology (R Dellavalle, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Dermatology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Many “validated” treatment outcome assessments in clinical trials fail to include outcomes important to patients. This review will focus on recent efforts to revise and make patient-centric clinical trial outcomes used in psoriasis, acne vulgaris, atopic dermatitis, and hidradenitis suppurativa.

Recent Findings

Over recent years, international coalitions have been formed to revise the investigator-oriented “validated” measures (e.g., PASI, IGA) in order to incorporate outcomes important to patients These not only include quality of life (QoL) assessments but also the anatomic location, physical discomfort, and appearance. This review discusses work underway to include patients in formatting revised outcome assessments.

Summary

Historically, outcome measures have been developed by clinicians and pharmaceutical companies for use in clinical trials. Nonetheless, a movement is underway supported by regulatory agencies, government officials, and patient advocacy groups to include patients in the process of redesigning clinical trial outcome measures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Marcus AD. Design power: patients play researchers in drug trials. 2014.

  2. de Wit MP, Berlo SE, Aanerud GJ, Aletaha D, Bijlsma JW, Croucher L, et al. European League Against Rheumatism recommendations for the inclusion of patient representatives in scientific projects. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70(5):722–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. CSG Annual Meeting 2015. Cochrane Skin. 2015.

  4. Norlin JM, Steen Carlsson K, Persson U, Schmitt-Egenolf M. Analysis of three outcome measures in moderate to severe psoriasis: a registry-based study of 2450 patients. Br J Dermatol. 2012;166(4):797–802.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Naldi L, Svensson A, Zenoni D, Diepgen T, Elsner P, Grob JJ, et al. Comparators, study duration, outcome measures and sponsorship in therapeutic trials of psoriasis: update of the EDEN psoriasis survey 2001-2006. Br J Dermatol. 2010;162(2):384–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Choi J, Koo JY. Quality of life issues in psoriasis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2003;49(2 Suppl):S57–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schmitt J, Ford DE. Understanding the relationship between objective disease severity, psoriatic symptoms, illness-related stress, health-related quality of life and depressive symptoms in patients with psoriasis—a structural equations modeling approach. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2007;29(2):134–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. • Armstrong AW, Villanueva Quintero DG, Echeverria CM, Gu Y, Karunaratne M, Reyes SO. Body region involvement and quality of life in psoriasis: analysis of a randomized controlled trial of adalimumab. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2016;17(6):691–9. This study discusses how body region impact on quality of life and association with PASI score, thus the importance of including body region in patient-centric outcome measures.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. • Strober B, Zhao Y, Tran MH, Gnanasakthy A, Nyirady J, Papavassilis C, et al. Psychometric validation of the Psoriasis Symptom Diary using Phase III study data from patients with chronic plaque psoriasis. Int J Dermatol. 2016;55(3):e147–55. This study reviews the reliability and validity of a new tool, Psoriasis Symptom Diary, generating patient-reported endpoints.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. • Blome C, Gosau R, Radtke MA, Reich K, Rustenbach SJ, Spehr C, et al. Patient-relevant treatment goals in psoriasis. Arch Dermatol Res. 2016;308(2):69–78. This study emphasizing the importance to include changes from baseline as part of routine patient-centric outcome assessments. Current assessments are static, thus based on the status at the moment of assessment without consideration of changes from baseline.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Krueger G, Koo J, Lebwohl M, Menter A, Stern RS, Rolstad T. The impact of psoriasis on quality of life: results of a 1998 National Psoriasis Foundation patient-membership survey. Arch Dermatol. 2001;137(3):280–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Langley RG, Ellis CN. Evaluating psoriasis with Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, Psoriasis Global Assessment, and Lattice System Physician’s Global Assessment. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004;51(4):563–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Spuls PI, Lecluse LL, Poulsen ML, Bos JD, Stern RS, Nijsten T. How good are clinical severity and outcome measures for psoriasis?: quantitative evaluation in a systematic review. J Investig Dermatol. 2010;130(4):933–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Puzenat E, Bronsard V, Prey S, Gourraud PA, Aractingi S, Bagot M, et al. What are the best outcome measures for assessing plaque psoriasis severity? A systematic review of the literature. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol : JEADV. 2010;24(Suppl 2):10–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ashcroft DM, Wan Po AL, Williams HC, Griffiths CE. Clinical measures of disease severity and outcome in psoriasis: a critical appraisal of their quality. Br J Dermatol. 1999;141(2):185–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Varada S, Kim N, Abernethy A, Armstrong A, Callis-Duffin K, Garg A, et al. IDEOM: International Dermatoloy Outcome Measures—proceedings from the first meeting. Psoriasis Forum. 2014;20(2):66–72.

    Google Scholar 

  17. • Solomon JA, Schuering BS. An update on the IDEOM (International Dermatology Outcome Measures) initiative to restructure current psoriasis outcome assessment measures to a globally uniform set of patient-centric outcome measures for use in clinical trials and clinical practice. Psoriasis Forum. 2015;21(1):50–2. This paper is an update on IDEOM and its goals for establishing an internation consensus of patient-centric outcome assessments. This paper also reviewed pSOAR, a similar effort initiated by ADEN and DermEpi ERG. This group later joined with IDEOM.

    Google Scholar 

  18. • Elman SA, Merola JF, Armstrong AW, Duffin KC, Latella J, Garg A, et al. The International Dermatology Outcome Measures (IDEOM) initiative: a review and update. J Drugs Dermatol : JDD. 2017;16(2):119–24. This paper is the latest update on the IDEOM initiative which is determined to develop internationally acceptable patient-centric outcomes measures through a collaborative effort of patients, patient advocacy groups, health economists, physicians, industry partners, payers, and regulatory agencies.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gottlieb A, Swerlick R. IDEOM: International Dermatology Outcomes Measures; A Call to Action. Psoriasis Forum. 2013;19(3):107–9.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gottlieb AB, Armstrong AW, Christensen R, Garg A, Duffin KC, Boehncke WH, et al. The International Dermatology Outcome Measures initiative as applied to psoriatic disease outcomes: a report from the GRAPPA 2013 meeting. J Rheumatol. 2014;41(6):1227–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gottlieb AB, Levin AA, Armstrong AW, Abernethy A, Duffin KC, Bhushan R, et al. The International Dermatology Outcome Measures Group: formation of patient-centered outcome measures in dermatology. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015;72(2):345–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lynn DD, Umari T, Dunnick CA, Dellavalle RP. The epidemiology of acne vulgaris in late adolescence. Adolescent health, medicine and therapeutics. 2016;7:13–25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. • Barratt H, Hamilton F, Car J, Lyons C, Layton A, Majeed A. Outcome measures in acne vulgaris: systematic review. Br J Dermatol. 2009;160(1):132–6. This journal article, albeit more than 3 years prior to this review, is an excellent review of the importance to include the psychological impact of acne as an essential feature of patient-centric outcomes.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. • Agnew T, Furber G, Leach M, Segal L. A comprehensive critique and review of published measures of acne severity. The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology. 2016;9(7):40–52. This paper is a comprehensive review of the published measures of acne severity that also suggests what an ideal acne outcome measure scale would include.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. • Yap FB. Cardiff acne disability index in Sarawak, Malaysia. Ann Dermatol. 2012;24(2):158–61. This paper is of historical importance, introducing a patient-centric outcome measure for global use.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Bonafede M, Joseph GJ, Princic N, Harrison DJ. Annual acquisition and administration cost of biologic response modifiers per patient with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis. Med Econ. 2013;16(9):1120–8.

  27. • Alexis A, Daniels SR, Johnson N, Pompilus F, Burgess SM, Harper JC. Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for facial acne: the Acne Symptom and Impact Scale (ASIS). J Drugs Dermatol : JDD. 2014;13(3):333–40. An article describes the development of a new, promising acne outcome measure, the Acne Symptoms and Impact Scale (ASIS).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. • Hudgens S, Harper JC, Daniels SR, Banderas B, Varon S, Alexis AF. Validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure for facial acne: the Acne Symptom and Impact Scale (ASIS). J Drugs Dermatol : JDD. 2015;14(6):552–9. An article describing that the content of the ASIS is both reliable and valid for Caucasian populations, with similar findings noted for non-Caucasian subgroups.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Furue M, Chiba T, Tsuji G, Ulzii D, Kido-Nakahara M, Nakahara T, et al. Atopic dermatitis: immune deviation, barrier dysfunction, IgE autoreactivity and new therapies. Allergology international : official journal of the Japanese Society of Allergology. 2017.

  30. Kim J, Kim H, Lim D, Lee YK, Kim JH. Effects of indoor air pollutants on atopic dermatitis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016;13(12):1220. doi:10.3390/ijerph13121220.

  31. Han RT, Back SK, Lee H, Lee J, Kim HY, Kim HJ, et al. Formaldehyde-induced aggravation of pruritus and dermatitis is associated with the elevated expression of Th1 cytokines in a rat model of atopic dermatitis. PLoS One. 2016;11(12):e0168466.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Schwensen JF, Friis UF, Menne T, Flyvholm MA, Johansen JD. Contact allergy to preservatives in patients with occupational contact dermatitis and exposure analysis of preservatives in registered chemical products for occupational use. International archives of occupational and environmental health. 2017.

  33. Celakovska J, Bukac J. The severity of atopic dermatitis evaluated with the SCORAD index and the occurrence of bronchial asthma and rhinitis, and the duration of atopic dermatitis. Allergy & rhinology (Providence, RI). 2016;7(1):8–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Chalmers JR, Simpson E, Apfelbacher CJ, Thomas KS, von Kobyletzki L, Schmitt J, et al. Report from the fourth international consensus meeting to harmonize core outcome measures for atopic eczema/dermatitis clinical trials (HOME initiative). Br J Dermatol. 2016;175(1):69–79.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Jemec GB. Clinical practice. Hidradenitis suppurativa. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(2):158–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Wortsman X. Imaging of hidradenitis suppurativa. Dermatol Clin. 2016;34(1):59–68.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Thorlacius L, Ingram JR, Garg A, Villumsen B, Esmann S, Kirby JS, et al. Protocol for the development of a core domain set for hidradenitis suppurativa trial outcomes. BMJ Open. 2017;7(2):e014733.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. • Ingram JR, Hadjieconomou S, Piguet V. Development of core outcome sets in hidradenitis suppurativa: systematic review of outcome measure instruments to inform the process. Br J Dermatol. 2016;175(2):263–72. This paper is a recent systematic review of 30 outcome measures used for hidradenitis suppurativa used in clinical trials that followed PRISM guidelines.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Kimball AB, Jemec GB, Yang M, Kageleiry A, Signorovitch JE, Okun MM, et al. Assessing the validity, responsiveness and meaningfulness of the hidradenitis suppurativa clinical response (HiSCR) as the clinical endpoint for hidradenitis suppurativa treatment. Br J Dermatol. 2014;171(6):1434–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Chiricozzi A, Faleri S, Franceschini C, Caro RD, Chimenti S, Bianchi L. AISI: a new disease severity assessment tool for hidradenitis suppurativa. Wounds : a compendium of clinical research and practice. 2015;27(10):258–64.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Medicine, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA

    Jennifer Nergard-Martin, Fariha Siddiqui, Ajay Kailas, Monet Winslow & James A Solomon

  2. Ameriderm Research, Ormond Beach, FL, USA

    James A Solomon

  3. College of Medicine, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA

    James A Solomon

Authors
  1. Jennifer Nergard-Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fariha Siddiqui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ajay Kailas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Monet Winslow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. James A Solomon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James A Solomon.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Jennifer Nergard-Martin, Fariha Siddiqui, Ajay Kailas and Monet Winslow declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Dr. Solomon reports being an active participant in IDEOM, ADEN, and ACORN.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Epidemiology

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nergard-Martin, J., Siddiqui, F., Kailas, A. et al. Why Outcome Measures in Dermatology Are Becoming Patient Centric. Curr Derm Rep 6, 178–185 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13671-017-0187-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13671-017-0187-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation