Sensitivity to treatment and score bands of the Infants and Toddlers Dermatology Quality of Life questionnaire

Quality-of-Life Measurement in Epidermolysis Bullosa. Position Statement of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Task Force on Quality of Life and Patient-Oriented Outcomes and External Experts

In this paper, the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) Task Force on Quality of Life (QoL) and Patient-Oriented Outcomes presents its position statements on health-related (HR) QoL assessment in epidermolysis bullosa (EB). The EADV TF on QoL and Patient-Oriented Outcomes recommends the use of the EB-specific instrument QOLEB in patients over the age of 10 years and, in addition to the QOLEB, the use of iscorEB-p in moderate-to-severe EB; the IntoDermQoL proxy instrument with its EB-specific module should be used in children aged under 5 years. The EB-specific instrument iscorEB-p, and the dermatology-specific instrument CDLQI may measure HRQoL in children with EB aged from 5 to 10 years. Dermatology-specific and/or generic HRQoL instruments should be used to compare the impact on QoL of EB with other diseases; family QoL of patients with EB should be studied using the EB-specific EB-BoD, dermatology-specific family measures, and/or generic family QoL instruments.

Quality of life measurement in assessing treatment effectiveness in urticaria: European experts position statement

In this study, the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) Task Forces on Quality of Life and Patient-Oriented Outcomes and Urticaria and Angioedema has examined the Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) measurement in the treatment of urticaria. The Dermatology Life Quality Index was the most frequently used HRQoL instrument in clinical trials on urticaria. Many reports of clinical trials of urticaria gave no exact numeric results related to HRQoL changes, making clear conclusions and comparisons with other studies impossible. The interpretation of HRQoL impairment data is more difficult when assessed by instruments without severity stratification systems. The minimal clinically significant difference (MCID) is a more clinically oriented and relevant parameter than depending on statistically significant changes in HRQoL scores. Therefore, using HRQoL instruments with established MCID data in clinical trials and clinical practice is preferred.

Quality of life measurement in urticaria: Position statement of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Task Forces on Quality of Life and Patient-Oriented Outcomes and Urticaria and Angioedema

The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) Task Forces on quality of life (QoL) and patient-oriented outcomes and on urticaria and angioedema recommendations for the assessment of Health-related (HR) QoL in all patients with urticaria in research and practice are as follows: to use the DLQI for adults and the CDLQI for children as dermatology-specific and the CU-Q2oL as a disease-specific HRQoL instruments in urticaria; to use generic instruments to provide comparison of data on urticaria with non-dermatologic diseases, or to compare with healthy volunteers or the general population; to select validated HRQoL instruments with appropriate age limits; to present exact numeric data for HRQoL results; correct title of any HRQoL instrument should be used, along with its correct abbreviation and the reference to its original publication, where possible. The EADV TFs discourage the use of non-validated HRQoL instruments and modified HRQoL instruments that have not undergone standard validation.

Development of the acne-specific quality of life questionnaire Quality of Life Relevance-Acne

Background

Participating members of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Task Forces on quality of life (QoL) and Patient Oriented Outcomes and Acne, Rosacea and Hidradenitis Suppurativa initiated data collection in 9 European countries and formed the list of the most relevant topics for acne patients.

Objective

The aim of this study was to develop a new acne-specific health-related QoL instrument based on the list of the most relevant topics for acne patients.

Methods

After assessment by acne patients (n = 715) on how clear and relevant the items in the prototype questionnaire were, a group of experts on acne and QoL performed discussions on items inclusion, which resulted in a series of 21 items. Then another group of acne patients (n = 1502) filled in the new version of the instrument. A factor analysis was conducted on the 21-item version.

Results

Three-factor model with 19 items indicated a satisfactory fit. The three dimensions were called: Socioemotional; Symptoms; Stigma and Suicidal thoughts.

Limitations

Included patients and experts may not fully represent acne patients and health care professionals worldwide.

Conclusion

A final 19-item version of the Quality of Life Relevance-Acne was developed.

Quality of life measurement in teledermatology. Position statement of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Task Forces on Quality of Life and Patient Oriented Outcomes and Teledermatology

Many events, including the COVID-19 pandemic, have accelerated the implementation of teledermatology pathways within dermatology departments and across healthcare organizations. Quality of Life (QoL) assessment in dermatology is also a rapidly developing field with a gradual shift from theory to practice. The purpose of this paper organized jointly by the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) Task Force (TF) on QoL and patient-oriented outcomes and the EADV TF on teledermatology is to present current knowledge about QoL assessment during the use of teledermatology approaches, including data on health-related (HR) QoL instruments used in teledermatology, comparison of influence of different treatment methods on HRQoL after face-to-face and teledermatology consultations and to make practical recommendations concerning the assessment of QoL in teledermatology. The EADV TFs made the following position statements: HRQoL assessment may be an important part in most of teledermatology activities; HRQoL assessment may be easily and effectively performed during teledermatology consultations. It is especially important to monitor HRQoL of patients with chronic skin diseases during lockdowns or in areas where it is difficult to reach a hospital for face-to-face consultation; regular assessment of HRQoL of patients with skin diseases during teledermatology consultations may help to monitor therapy efficacy and visualize individual patient's needs; we recommend the use of the DLQI in teledermatology, including the use of the DLQI app which is available in seven languages; it is important to develop apps for dermatology-specific HRQoL instruments for use in children (for example the CDLQI and InToDermQoL) and for disease-specific instruments.

Responsiveness and Minimal Clinically Important Difference of the Infants and Toddlers Dermatology Quality of Life Questionnaire

BACKGROUND

The Infants and Toddlers Dermatology Quality of Life (InToDermQoL) is the dermatology-specific proxy health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instrument for children from birth to 4 years. The aim of the present study was to confirm the responsiveness and establish minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the InToDermQoL.

METHODS

Parents of children with skin diseases were asked to fill in the InToDermQoL at the initial visit (T1) and subsequent consultation (T2). We hypothesized that correlations between change scores of the InToDermQoL and change scores of global assessment of clinical severity by dermatologists and by patients' parents should be above 0.3. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves method was also used for confirmation of responsiveness and determination of MCIDs of the InToDermQoL. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was used as an indicator of responsiveness.

RESULTS

Results of 442 patients were included. Correlations between change scores of age-specific versions of the InToDermQoL and change scores of global assessment of clinical severity by dermatologists and by patients' parents were above 0.3 (0.46-0.74). AUCs for age-specific versions of the InToDermQoL were acceptable (above 0.7) or excellent (above 0.8). Estimated MCIDs for the InToDermQoL were as follows: 3 points of total score change for 0-11 months, 5 for 1-2 years and 3 or 4 for 3-4 years version. Estimated MCIDs for the InToDermQoL version for 1-2-year-old children was higher than MCIDs for the 3-4-year-old version despite the higher number of items in the latter. Therefore a MCID of 5 was recommended for both these versions.

CONCLUSIONS

Responsiveness for all age-specific versions of the InToDermQoL questionnaire was confirmed. MCIDs for the InToDermQoL are proposed as follows: 3-point change of the total score for age version 0-11 months and 5-point for the age versions 1-2 years and 3-4 years.