1
|
Blome C, Hülswitt L, Meineke A, Augustin M, Ohm F, Rusch J, Janke TM. Goals and benefits in topical treatment for psoriasis: development and pilot validation of a patient-reported outcomes tool, the Patient Benefit Index for Topical Treatment (PBI-TOP). Br J Dermatol 2024; 190:701-711. [PMID: 38213122 DOI: 10.1093/bjd/ljad484] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/31/2023] [Revised: 11/08/2023] [Accepted: 12/02/2023] [Indexed: 01/13/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Topical agents are an essential component of psoriasis therapy. OBJECTIVES To develop a new version of the patient-reported Patient Benefit Index assessing the importance and achievement of treatment goals in topical psoriasis therapy in adult patients (PBI-TOP). METHODS Through semi-structured interviews, focus groups and free-text questionnaires, patients reported their needs in topical treatment. Based on qualitative content analysis, items were developed by a consensus group and were refined in cognitive debriefing interviews. A pilot validation assessed the PBI-TOP and convergent criteria [Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI); Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI); affected Body Surface Area (BSA)]. RESULTS Thirty patients (26-72 years, mean 47; 60% male) reported various treatment goals relating to the themes 'effectiveness' and 'characteristics of the preparation'. Twenty patients took part in cognitive debriefings (22-84 years, mean 50.6, 50% male). There were 154 patients who participated in the pilot validation (18-85 years, mean 46.9, 63.6% male). An importance-weighted total score on overall effectiveness and three subscales based on exploratory factor analysis were defined: effectiveness on symptoms, effectiveness on quality of life (QoL), and characteristics of the preparation. All scores showed excellent internal consistency (α > 0.9). The global effectiveness score correlated significantly with DLQI (r = -0.41), PASI (r = -0.32) and BSA (r = -0.22). The effectiveness subscales (symptoms; QoL) correlated significantly with DLQI (r = -0.41; -0.32) and PASI (r = -0.27; -0.33). The score on characteristics of the preparation correlated significantly with the DLQI (r = -0.34). CONCLUSIONS The PBI-TOP showed good feasibility and favourable psychometric characteristics in this pilot validation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christine Blome
- Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing (IVDP), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany
| | - Lennart Hülswitt
- Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing (IVDP), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany
| | - Anna Meineke
- Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing (IVDP), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany
| | - Matthias Augustin
- Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing (IVDP), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany
| | - Frenz Ohm
- Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing (IVDP), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany
| | - Judith Rusch
- Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing (IVDP), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany
| | - Toni Maria Janke
- Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing (IVDP), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Vyas J, Johns JR, Ali FM, Singh RK, Ingram JR, Salek S, Finlay AY. A systematic review of 454 randomized controlled trials using the Dermatology Life Quality Index: experience in 69 diseases and 43 countries. Br J Dermatol 2024; 190:315-339. [PMID: 36971254 DOI: 10.1093/bjd/ljad079] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/25/2022] [Revised: 01/31/2023] [Accepted: 03/14/2023] [Indexed: 02/18/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Over 29 years of clinical application, the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) has remained the most used patient-reported outcome (PRO) in dermatology due to its robustness, simplicity and ease of use. OBJECTIVES To generate further evidence of the DLQI's utility in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to cover all diseases and interventions. METHODS The methodology followed PRISMA guidelines and included seven bibliographical databases, searching articles published from 1 January 1994 until 16 November 2021. Articles were reviewed independently by two assessors, and an adjudicator resolved any opinion differences. RESULTS Of 3220 screened publications, 454 articles meeting the eligibility criteria for inclusion, describing research on 198 190 patients, were analysed. DLQI scores were primary endpoints in 24 (5.3%) of studies. Most studies were of psoriasis (54.1%), although 69 different diseases were studied. Most study drugs were systemic (85.1%), with biologics comprising 55.9% of all pharmacological interventions. Topical treatments comprised 17.0% of total pharmacological interventions. Nonpharmacological interventions, mainly laser therapy and ultraviolet radiation treatment, comprised 12.2% of the total number of interventions. The majority of studies (63.7%) were multicentric, with trials conducted in at least 42 different countries; 40.2% were conducted in multiple countries. The minimal clinically importance difference (MCID) was reported in the analysis of 15.0% of studies, but only 1.3% considered full score meaning banding of the DLQI. Forty-seven (10.4%) of the studies investigated statistical correlation of the DLQI with clinical severity assessment or other PRO/quality of life tools; and 61-86% of studies had within-group scores differences greater than the MCID in 'active treatment arms'. The Jadad risk-of-bias scale showed that bias was generally low, as 91.8% of the studies had Jadad scores of ≥ 3; only 0.4% of studies showed a high risk of bias from randomization. Thirteen per cent had a high risk of bias from blinding and 10.1% had a high risk of bias from unknown outcomes of all participants in the studies. In 18.5% of the studies the authors declared that they followed an intention-to-treat protocol; imputation for missing DLQI data was used in 34.4% of studies. CONCLUSIONS This systematic review provides a wealth of evidence of the use of the DLQI in clinical trials to inform researchers' and -clinicians' decisions for its further use. Recommendations are also made for improving the reporting of data from future RCTs using the DLQI.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Jeffrey R Johns
- Division of Infection and Immunity, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Faraz M Ali
- Division of Infection and Immunity, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Ravinder K Singh
- Division of Infection and Immunity, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - John R Ingram
- Division of Infection and Immunity, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| | - Sam Salek
- School of Life and Medical Sciences, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK
| | - Andrew Y Finlay
- Division of Infection and Immunity, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Sbidian E, Chaimani A, Garcia-Doval I, Doney L, Dressler C, Hua C, Hughes C, Naldi L, Afach S, Le Cleach L. Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022; 5:CD011535. [PMID: 35603936 PMCID: PMC9125768 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011535.pub5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease with either skin or joints manifestations, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. The relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES To compare the efficacy and safety of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety. SEARCH METHODS For this update of the living systematic review, we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to October 2021: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults over 18 years with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, compared to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes were: proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90; proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase (8 to 24 weeks after randomisation). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We conducted duplicate study selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and analyses. We synthesised data using pairwise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare treatments and rank them according to effectiveness (PASI 90 score) and acceptability (inverse of SAEs). We assessed the certainty of NMA evidence for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons using CINeMA, as very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer treatment hierarchy, from 0% (worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (best for effectiveness or safety). MAIN RESULTS This update includes an additional 19 studies, taking the total number of included studies to 167, and randomised participants to 58,912, 67.2% men, mainly recruited from hospitals. Average age was 44.5 years, mean PASI score at baseline was 20.4 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most studies were placebo-controlled (57%). We assessed a total of 20 treatments. Most (140) trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). One-third of the studies (57/167) had high risk of bias; 23 unclear risk, and most (87) low risk. Most studies (127/167) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 24 studies did not report a funding source. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than placebo. Anti-IL17 treatment showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 compared to all the interventions, except anti-IL23. Biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23 and anti-TNF alpha showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than the non-biological systemic agents. For reaching PASI 90, the most effective drugs when compared to placebo were (SUCRA rank order, all high-certainty evidence): infliximab (risk ratio (RR) 50.19, 95% CI 20.92 to 120.45), bimekizumab (RR 30.27, 95% CI 25.45 to 36.01), ixekizumab (RR 30.19, 95% CI 25.38 to 35.93), risankizumab (RR 28.75, 95% CI 24.03 to 34.39). Clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar when compared against each other. Bimekizumab, ixekizumab and risankizumab showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than other anti-IL17 drugs (secukinumab and brodalumab) and guselkumab. Infliximab, anti-IL17 drugs (bimekizumab, ixekizumab, secukinumab and brodalumab) and anti-IL23 drugs (risankizumab and guselkumab) except tildrakizumab showed a higher proportion of patients reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and three anti-TNF alpha agents (adalimumab, certolizumab and etanercept). Ustekinumab was superior to certolizumab; adalimumab and ustekinumab were superior to etanercept. No significant difference was shown between apremilast and two non-biological drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. The risk of SAEs was significantly lower for participants on methotrexate compared with most of the interventions. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low- to moderate-certainty for all the comparisons (except methotrexate versus placebo, which was high-certainty). The findings therefore have to be viewed with caution. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1), the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Our review shows that, compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, bimekizumab, ixekizumab, and risankizumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation), and is not sufficient for evaluating longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean 44.5 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20.4 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the safety evidence for most interventions was low to moderate quality. More randomised trials directly comparing active agents are needed, and these should include systematic subgroup analyses (sex, age, ethnicity, comorbidities, psoriatic arthritis). To provide long-term information on the safety of treatments included in this review, an evaluation of non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports from regulatory agencies is needed. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emilie Sbidian
- Department of Dermatology, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Clinical Investigation Centre, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| | - Anna Chaimani
- Université de Paris, Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), INSERM, F-75004, Paris, France
- Cochrane France, Paris, France
| | - Ignacio Garcia-Doval
- Department of Dermatology, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Vigo, Vigo, Spain
| | - Liz Doney
- Cochrane Skin, Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Corinna Dressler
- Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Camille Hua
- Department of Dermatology, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| | - Carolyn Hughes
- c/o Cochrane Skin Group, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Luigi Naldi
- Centro Studi GISED (Italian Group for Epidemiologic Research in Dermatology) - FROM (Research Foundation of Ospedale Maggiore Bergamo), Padiglione Mazzoleni - Presidio Ospedaliero Matteo Rota, Bergamo, Italy
| | - Sivem Afach
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| | - Laurence Le Cleach
- Department of Dermatology, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Lambert J, Hansen JB, Sohrt A, Puig L. Dermatology Life Quality Index in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Plaque Psoriasis Treated with Brodalumab or Ustekinumab. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) 2021; 11:1265-1275. [PMID: 33988818 PMCID: PMC8322208 DOI: 10.1007/s13555-021-00545-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/29/2021] [Accepted: 04/29/2021] [Indexed: 12/01/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction Targeted biological therapies for psoriasis have resulted in significant benefits, with therapeutic goals such as clear or almost clear skin accompanied by improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The objective of this study was to compare the effects of 52 weeks of treatment with brodalumab or ustekinumab on HRQoL in patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Methods Data were pooled from two randomised controlled phase 3 trials (AMAGINE-2 and -3) which included patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis treated with brodalumab 210 mg or ustekinumab 45 or 90 mg for 52 weeks. HRQoL outcomes were measured using the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) as well as the DLQI-Relevant (DLQI-R) version which excludes ‘not relevant’ responses. Results A total of 929 patients were included, 339 in the brodalumab group and 590 in the ustekinumab group. A significantly greater reduction (improvement) in DLQI score from baseline was observed in the brodalumab group compared with the ustekinumab group at weeks 4 [least-squares (LS) mean difference − 2.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] − 3.6 to − 2.2; p < 0.001), 12 (LS mean difference − 0.85, 95% CI − 1.5 to − 0.2; p = 0.01) and 52 (LS mean difference − 0.94, 95% CI − 1.6 to − 0.2; p = 0.009)]. Significantly greater proportions of patients treated with brodalumab achieved a DLQI score of 0 at weeks 4 (15.0 vs. 5.4%; p < 0.0001), 12 (37.5 vs. 28.0%; p = 0.0140) and 52 (46.3 vs. 30.3%; p < 0.0001), or of ≤ 1 [DLQI (0/1): 33.9 vs. 15.4%, 59.9 vs. 45.6% and 54.9 vs. 39.8%, respectively; all p < 0.0001]. Similar results were observed using the DLQI-R scoring system. Significantly more patients achieved a ≥ 4 or ≥ 5 improvement in DLQI with brodalumab compared to ustekinumab at weeks 4 and 52. Treatment with brodalumab was associated with significantly more patients achieving a DLQI of 0 compared to ustekinumab for all domains after 4 and 52 weeks. Conclusion Brodalumab was associated with a significantly greater improvement in HRQoL compared to ustekinumab in patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jo Lambert
- Department of Dermatology, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium
| | | | | | - Luis Puig
- Department of Dermatology, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau-Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Barcelona, Spain.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Sbidian E, Chaimani A, Garcia-Doval I, Doney L, Dressler C, Hua C, Hughes C, Naldi L, Afach S, Le Cleach L. Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 4:CD011535. [PMID: 33871055 PMCID: PMC8408312 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011535.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease for which some people have a genetic predisposition. The condition manifests in inflammatory effects on either the skin or joints, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of the different systemic treatments in psoriasis against placebo. However, the relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES To compare the efficacy and safety of non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis using a network meta-analysis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety. SEARCH METHODS For this living systematic review we updated our searches of the following databases monthly to September 2020: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched two trials registers to the same date. We checked the reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for further references to eligible RCTs. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults (over 18 years of age) with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis whose skin had been clinically diagnosed with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, in comparison to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes of this review were: the proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 at induction phase (from 8 to 24 weeks after the randomisation), and the proportion of participants with serious adverse events (SAEs) at induction phase. We did not evaluate differences in specific adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Several groups of two review authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and analyses. We synthesised the data using pair-wise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the treatments of interest and rank them according to their effectiveness (as measured by the PASI 90 score) and acceptability (the inverse of serious adverse events). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for the two primary outcomes and all comparisons, according to CINeMA, as either very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. We used the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) to infer on treatment hierarchy: 0% (treatment is the worst for effectiveness or safety) to 100% (treatment is the best for effectiveness or safety). MAIN RESULTS We included 158 studies (18 new studies for the update) in our review (57,831 randomised participants, 67.2% men, mainly recruited from hospitals). The overall average age was 45 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo-controlled (58%), 30% were head-to-head studies, and 11% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. We have assessed a total of 20 treatments. In all, 133 trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). All but two of the outcomes included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation). We assessed many studies (53/158) as being at high risk of bias; 25 were at an unclear risk, and 80 at low risk. Most studies (123/158) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 22 studies did not report their source of funding. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all of the interventions (non-biological systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) were significantly more effective than placebo in reaching PASI 90. At class level, in reaching PASI 90, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the non-biological systemic agents. At drug level, infliximab, ixekizumab, secukinumab, brodalumab, risankizumab and guselkumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and three anti-TNF alpha agents: adalimumab, certolizumab, and etanercept. Ustekinumab and adalimumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than etanercept; ustekinumab was more effective than certolizumab, and the clinical effectiveness of ustekinumab and adalimumab was similar. There was no significant difference between tofacitinib or apremilast and three non-biological drugs: fumaric acid esters (FAEs), ciclosporin and methotrexate. Network meta-analysis also showed that infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, secukinumab, guselkumab, and brodalumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in reaching PASI 90. The clinical effectiveness of these drugs was similar, except for ixekizumab which had a better chance of reaching PASI 90 compared with secukinumab, guselkumab and brodalumab. The clinical effectiveness of these seven drugs was: infliximab (versus placebo): risk ratio (RR) 50.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 20.96 to 120.67, SUCRA = 93.6; high-certainty evidence; ixekizumab (versus placebo): RR 32.48, 95% CI 27.13 to 38.87; SUCRA = 90.5; high-certainty evidence; risankizumab (versus placebo): RR 28.76, 95% CI 23.96 to 34.54; SUCRA = 84.6; high-certainty evidence; bimekizumab (versus placebo): RR 58.64, 95% CI 3.72 to 923.86; SUCRA = 81.4; high-certainty evidence; secukinumab (versus placebo): RR 25.79, 95% CI 21.61 to 30.78; SUCRA = 76.2; high-certainty evidence; guselkumab (versus placebo): RR 25.52, 95% CI 21.25 to 30.64; SUCRA = 75; high-certainty evidence; and brodalumab (versus placebo): RR 23.55, 95% CI 19.48 to 28.48; SUCRA = 68.4; moderate-certainty evidence. Conservative interpretation is warranted for the results for bimekizumab (as well as mirikizumab, tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, and methotrexate), as these drugs, in the NMA, have been evaluated in few trials. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to moderate certainty for all the comparisons. Thus, the results have to be viewed with caution and we cannot be sure of the ranking. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1) the results were similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Our review shows that compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, secukinumab, guselkumab and brodalumab were the most effective treatments for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence. This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficient for evaluation of longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 45 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. Another major concern is that short-term trials provide scanty and sometimes poorly-reported safety data and thus do not provide useful evidence to create a reliable risk profile of treatments. We found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, and the evidence for all the interventions was of low to moderate quality. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will also be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies. In terms of future research, randomised trials directly comparing active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between non-biological systemic agents and small molecules, and between biological agents (anti-IL17 versus anti-IL23, anti-IL23 versus anti-IL12/23, anti-TNF alpha versus anti-IL12/23). Future trials should also undertake systematic subgroup analyses (e.g. assessing biological-naïve participants, baseline psoriasis severity, presence of psoriatic arthritis, etc.). Finally, outcome measure harmonisation is needed in psoriasis trials, and researchers should look at the medium- and long-term benefit and safety of the interventions and the comparative safety of different agents. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emilie Sbidian
- Department of Dermatology, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Clinical Investigation Centre, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| | - Anna Chaimani
- Université de Paris, Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), INSERM, F-75004, Paris, France
- Cochrane France, Paris, France
| | - Ignacio Garcia-Doval
- Department of Dermatology, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Vigo, Vigo, Spain
| | - Liz Doney
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, Cochrane Skin Group, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Corinna Dressler
- Division of Evidence Based Medicine, Department of Dermatology, Venerology and Allergology, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - Camille Hua
- Department of Dermatology, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| | - Carolyn Hughes
- c/o Cochrane Skin Group, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Luigi Naldi
- Centro Studi GISED (Italian Group for Epidemiologic Research in Dermatology) - FROM (Research Foundation of Ospedale Maggiore Bergamo), Padiglione Mazzoleni - Presidio Ospedaliero Matteo Rota, Bergamo, Italy
| | - Sivem Afach
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| | - Laurence Le Cleach
- Department of Dermatology, Hôpital Henri Mondor, Créteil, France
- Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Créteil, France
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Sbidian E, Chaimani A, Afach S, Doney L, Dressler C, Hua C, Mazaud C, Phan C, Hughes C, Riddle D, Naldi L, Garcia-Doval I, Le Cleach L. Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 1:CD011535. [PMID: 31917873 PMCID: PMC6956468 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011535.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 62] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Psoriasis is an immune-mediated disease for which some people have a genetic predisposition. The condition manifests in inflammatory effects on either the skin or joints, or both, and it has a major impact on quality of life. Although there is currently no cure for psoriasis, various treatment strategies allow sustained control of disease signs and symptoms. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have compared the efficacy of the different systemic treatments in psoriasis against placebo. However, the relative benefit of these treatments remains unclear due to the limited number of trials comparing them directly head-to-head, which is why we chose to conduct a network meta-analysis. This is the baseline update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2017, in preparation for this Cochrane Review becoming a living systematic review. OBJECTIVES To compare the efficacy and safety of conventional systemic agents, small molecules, and biologics for people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, and to provide a ranking of these treatments according to their efficacy and safety. SEARCH METHODS We updated our research using the following databases to January 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and the conference proceedings of a number of dermatology meetings. We also searched five trials registers and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) reports (until June 2019). We checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies for further references to relevant RCTs. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic treatments in adults (over 18 years of age) with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis or psoriatic arthritis whose skin had been clinically diagnosed with moderate-to-severe psoriasis, at any stage of treatment, in comparison to placebo or another active agent. The primary outcomes of this review were: the proportion of participants who achieved clear or almost clear skin, that is, at least Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 at induction phase (from 8 to 24 weeks after the randomisation), and the proportion of participants with serious adverse effects (SAEs) at induction phase. We did not evaluate differences in specific adverse effects. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Several groups of two review authors independently undertook study selection, data extraction, 'Risk of bias' assessment, and analyses. We synthesised the data using pair-wise and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the treatments of interest and rank them according to their effectiveness (as measured by the PASI 90 score) and acceptability (the inverse of serious adverse effects). We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence from the NMA for the two primary outcomes, according to GRADE, as either very low, low, moderate, or high. We contacted study authors when data were unclear or missing. MAIN RESULTS We included 140 studies (31 new studies for the update) in our review (51,749 randomised participants, 68% men, mainly recruited from hospitals). The overall average age was 45 years; the overall mean PASI score at baseline was 20 (range: 9.5 to 39). Most of these studies were placebo-controlled (59%), 30% were head-to-head studies, and 11% were multi-armed studies with both an active comparator and a placebo. We have assessed a total of 19 treatments. In all, 117 trials were multicentric (two to 231 centres). All but two of the outcomes included in this review were limited to the induction phase (assessment from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation). We assessed many studies (57/140) as being at high risk of bias; 42 were at an unclear risk, and 41 at low risk. Most studies (107/140) declared funding by a pharmaceutical company, and 22 studies did not report the source of funding. Network meta-analysis at class level showed that all of the interventions (conventional systemic agents, small molecules, and biological treatments) were significantly more effective than placebo in terms of reaching PASI 90. At class level, in terms of reaching PASI 90, the biologic treatments anti-IL17, anti-IL12/23, anti-IL23, and anti-TNF alpha were significantly more effective than the small molecules and the conventional systemic agents. At drug level, in terms of reaching PASI 90, infliximab, all of the anti-IL17 drugs (ixekizumab, secukinumab, bimekizumab and brodalumab) and the anti-IL23 drugs (risankizumab and guselkumab, but not tildrakizumab) were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than ustekinumab and 3 anti-TNF alpha agents: adalimumab, certolizumab and etanercept. Adalimumab and ustekinumab were significantly more effective in reaching PASI 90 than certolizumab and etanercept. There was no significant difference between tofacitinib or apremilast and between two conventional drugs: ciclosporin and methotrexate. Network meta-analysis also showed that infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, guselkumab, secukinumab and brodalumab outperformed other drugs when compared to placebo in reaching PASI 90. The clinical effectiveness for these seven drugs was similar: infliximab (versus placebo): risk ratio (RR) 29.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 19.94 to 43.70, Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) = 88.5; moderate-certainty evidence; ixekizumab (versus placebo): RR 28.12, 95% CI 23.17 to 34.12, SUCRA = 88.3, moderate-certainty evidence; risankizumab (versus placebo): RR 27.67, 95% CI 22.86 to 33.49, SUCRA = 87.5, high-certainty evidence; bimekizumab (versus placebo): RR 58.64, 95% CI 3.72 to 923.86, SUCRA = 83.5, low-certainty evidence; guselkumab (versus placebo): RR 25.84, 95% CI 20.90 to 31.95; SUCRA = 81; moderate-certainty evidence; secukinumab (versus placebo): RR 23.97, 95% CI 20.03 to 28.70, SUCRA = 75.4; high-certainty evidence; and brodalumab (versus placebo): RR 21.96, 95% CI 18.17 to 26.53, SUCRA = 68.7; moderate-certainty evidence. Conservative interpretation is warranted for the results for bimekizumab (as well as tyrosine kinase 2 inhibitor, acitretin, ciclosporin, fumaric acid esters, and methotrexate), as these drugs, in the NMA, have been evaluated in few trials. We found no significant difference between any of the interventions and the placebo for the risk of SAEs. Nevertheless, the SAE analyses were based on a very low number of events with low to very low certainty for just under half of the treatment estimates in total, and moderate for the others. Thus, the results have to be viewed with caution and we cannot be sure of the ranking. For other efficacy outcomes (PASI 75 and Physician Global Assessment (PGA) 0/1) the results were very similar to the results for PASI 90. Information on quality of life was often poorly reported and was absent for several of the interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Our review shows that compared to placebo, the biologics infliximab, ixekizumab, risankizumab, bimekizumab, guselkumab, secukinumab and brodalumab were the best choices for achieving PASI 90 in people with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on the basis of moderate- to high-certainty evidence (low-certainty evidence for bimekizumab). This NMA evidence is limited to induction therapy (outcomes were measured from 8 to 24 weeks after randomisation) and is not sufficient for evaluation of longer-term outcomes in this chronic disease. Moreover, we found low numbers of studies for some of the interventions, and the young age (mean age of 45 years) and high level of disease severity (PASI 20 at baseline) may not be typical of patients seen in daily clinical practice. Another major concern is that short-term trials provide scanty and sometimes poorly-reported safety data and thus do not provide useful evidence to create a reliable risk profile of treatments. Indeed, we found no significant difference in the assessed interventions and placebo in terms of SAEs, but the evidence for all the interventions was of very low to moderate quality. In order to provide long-term information on the safety of the treatments included in this review, it will also be necessary to evaluate non-randomised studies and postmarketing reports released from regulatory agencies. In terms of future research, randomised trials comparing directly active agents are necessary once high-quality evidence of benefit against placebo is established, including head-to-head trials amongst and between conventional systemic and small molecules, and between biological agents (anti-IL17 versus anti-IL23, anti-IL23 versus anti-IL12/23, anti-TNF alpha versus anti-IL12/23). Future trials should also undertake systematic subgroup analyses (e.g. assessing biological-naïve participants, baseline psoriasis severity, presence of psoriatic arthritis, etc.). Finally, outcome measure harmonisation is needed in psoriasis trials, and researchers should look at the medium- and long-term benefit and safety of the interventions and the comparative safety of different agents. Editorial note: This is a living systematic review. Living systematic reviews offer a new approach to review updating, in which the review is continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the current status of this review.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emilie Sbidian
- Hôpital Henri Mondor, Department of Dermatology, 51 Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, Créteil, France, 94000
- Hôpital Henri Mondor, Clinical Investigation Centre, Créteil, France, 94010
- Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Créteil, France
| | - Anna Chaimani
- Université de Paris, Research Center in Epidemiology and Statistics Sorbonne Paris Cité (CRESS-UMR1153), Inserm, Inra, F-75004, Paris, France
- Cochrane France, Paris, France
| | - Sivem Afach
- Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Epidemiology in dermatology and evaluation of therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Créteil, France
| | - Liz Doney
- Cochrane Skin Group, The University of Nottingham, Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, A103, King's Meadow Campus, Lenton Lane, Nottingham, UK, NG7 2NR
| | - Corinna Dressler
- Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Division of Evidence Based Medicine, Department of Dermatology, Venerology and Allergology, Charitéplatz 1, Berlin, Germany, 10117
| | - Camille Hua
- Hôpital Henri Mondor, Department of Dermatology, 51 Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, Créteil, France, 94000
| | - Canelle Mazaud
- Hôpital Henri Mondor, Department of Dermatology, 51 Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, Créteil, France, 94000
| | - Céline Phan
- Centre Hospitalier Victor Dupouy, Department of Dermatology, Argenteuil, France
| | - Carolyn Hughes
- The University of Nottingham, c/o Cochrane Skin Group, A103, King's Meadow Campus, Lenton Lane, Nottingham, UK, NG7 2NR
| | - Dru Riddle
- Texas Christian University (TCU), School of Nurse Anesthesia, Fort Worth, Texas, USA
| | - Luigi Naldi
- Padiglione Mazzoleni - Presidio Ospedaliero Matteo Rota, Centro Studi GISED (Italian Group for Epidemiologic Research in Dermatology) - FROM (Research Foundation of Ospedale Maggiore Bergamo), Via Garibaldi 13/15, Bergamo, Italy, 24122
| | - Ignacio Garcia-Doval
- Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Vigo, Department of Dermatology, Meixoeiro sn, Vigo, Spain, 36214
| | - Laurence Le Cleach
- Hôpital Henri Mondor, Department of Dermatology, 51 Avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, Créteil, France, 94000
- Université Paris Est Créteil (UPEC), Epidemiology in Dermatology and Evaluation of Therapeutics (EpiDermE) - EA 7379, Créteil, France
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Maul J, Navarini A, Sommer R, Anzengruber F, Sorbe C, Mrowietz U, Drach M, Blome C, Boehncke W, Thaci D, Reich K, Kiedrowski R, Körber A, Yawalkar N, Mainetti C, Laffitte E, Streit M, Rustenbach S, Conrad C, Borradori L, Gilliet M, Cozzio A, Itin P, Häusermann P, French L, Radtke M, Augustin M. Gender and age significantly determine patient needs and treatment goals in psoriasis – a lesson for practice. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2019; 33:700-708. [DOI: 10.1111/jdv.15324] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/16/2018] [Accepted: 10/04/2018] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- J.‐T. Maul
- Department of Dermatology University Hospital Zurich Zurich Switzerland
| | - A.A. Navarini
- Department of Dermatology University Hospital Zurich Zurich Switzerland
| | - R. Sommer
- Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing (IVDP) University Medical Center Hamburg‐Eppendorf (UKE) Hamburg Germany
| | - F. Anzengruber
- Department of Dermatology University Hospital Zurich Zurich Switzerland
| | - C. Sorbe
- Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing (IVDP) University Medical Center Hamburg‐Eppendorf (UKE) Hamburg Germany
| | - U. Mrowietz
- Department of Dermatology University Medical Center Schleswig‐Holstein Kiel Germany
| | - M. Drach
- Department of Dermatology University Hospital Zurich Zurich Switzerland
| | - C. Blome
- Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing (IVDP) University Medical Center Hamburg‐Eppendorf (UKE) Hamburg Germany
| | - W.‐H. Boehncke
- Department of Dermatology and Venereology Geneva University Hospitals Geneva Switzerland
- Department of Pathology and Immunology Geneva University Hospitals Geneva Switzerland
| | - D. Thaci
- Comprehensive Center for Inflammation Medicine University Hospital Schleswig‐Holstein Lübeck Germany
| | - K. Reich
- Dermatologikum Berlin and SCIderm Research Institute Hamburg Germany
| | | | - A. Körber
- Dermatology Practice Essen Essen Germany
| | - N. Yawalkar
- Department of Dermatology Inselspital University Hospital Bern University of Bern Bern Switzerland
| | - C. Mainetti
- Department of Dermatology Regional Hospital Bellinzona Bellinzona Switzerland
| | - E. Laffitte
- Department of Dermatology and Venereology Geneva University Hospitals Geneva Switzerland
| | - M. Streit
- Department of Dermatology Cantonal Hospital Aarau Aarau Switzerland
| | - S. Rustenbach
- Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing (IVDP) University Medical Center Hamburg‐Eppendorf (UKE) Hamburg Germany
| | - C. Conrad
- Department of Dermatology University Hospital Lausanne Lausanne Switzerland
| | - L. Borradori
- Department of Dermatology Inselspital University Hospital Bern University of Bern Bern Switzerland
| | - M. Gilliet
- Department of Dermatology University Hospital Lausanne Lausanne Switzerland
| | - A. Cozzio
- Department of Dermatology Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen St. Gallen Switzerland
| | - P. Itin
- Department of Dermatology University Hospital Basel Basel Switzerland
| | - P. Häusermann
- Department of Dermatology University Hospital Basel Basel Switzerland
| | - L.E. French
- Department of Dermatology University Hospital Zurich Zurich Switzerland
| | - M.A. Radtke
- Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing (IVDP) University Medical Center Hamburg‐Eppendorf (UKE) Hamburg Germany
| | - M. Augustin
- Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing (IVDP) University Medical Center Hamburg‐Eppendorf (UKE) Hamburg Germany
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Chen Z, Gong Y, Shi Y. Novel Biologic Agents Targeting Interleukin-23 and Interleukin-17 for Moderate-to-Severe Psoriasis. Clin Drug Investig 2018; 37:891-899. [PMID: 28755058 DOI: 10.1007/s40261-017-0550-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/26/2023]
Abstract
Psoriasis is a common, chronic inflammatory skin disease and cannot be cured. The treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis has been revolutionized with the development of biologic agents for nearly 20 years. Current studies show that interleukin-23 and interleukin-17 play remarkable roles in the pathogenesis of psoriasis. Interleukin-23 can sustain the differentiation and maintenance of T helper-17 lineage. Interleukin-17 can recruit and stimulate many cells, which play important parts in psoriasis through interacting with the interleukin-17 receptor. Several biologic agents targeting interleukin-23, interleukin-17, or their receptors are now in different stages: some are approved or clinical trials are in progress. Ustekinumab targets interleukin-23/interleukin-12p40; risankizumab, guselkumab, and tildrakizumab target interleukin-23p19; secukinumab and ixekizumab target interleukin-17A; and brodalumab targets the interleukin-17 receptors. All of these agents have good efficacy in treating moderate-to-severe psoriasis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zeyu Chen
- Department of Dermatology, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, No. 301, Middle Yanchang Road, Jing'an District, Shanghai, 200072, China
| | - Yu Gong
- Department of Dermatology, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, No. 301, Middle Yanchang Road, Jing'an District, Shanghai, 200072, China
| | - Yuling Shi
- Department of Dermatology, Shanghai Tenth People's Hospital, Tongji University School of Medicine, No. 301, Middle Yanchang Road, Jing'an District, Shanghai, 200072, China.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Lenormand C, Battistella M, Velter C. Cancérologie cutanée et psoriasis. Ann Dermatol Venereol 2018; 145 Suppl 2:IIS3-IIS22. [PMID: 29699629 DOI: 10.1016/s0151-9638(18)30367-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/17/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- C Lenormand
- CHU de Strasbourg, hôpitaux universitaires de Strasbourg, 1, place de l'Höpital, 67000 Strasbourg, France.
| | - M Battistella
- Service de pathologie, hôpital Saint-Louis, université Paris Diderot, 1, avenue Claude-Vellefaux, 75010 Paris
| | - C Velter
- Faculté de médecine, université de Strasbourg et clinique dermatologique, hôpitaux universitaires de Strasbourg, 1, place de l'Höpital, 67091 Strasbourg, France
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Zander N, Demirel EB, Augustin M, Sommer R, Debus ES, Breuer P, Blome C. Development and validation of the Patient Benefit Index for peripheral arterial disease. VASA 2018; 47:219-226. [PMID: 29366378 DOI: 10.1024/0301-1526/a000687] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
Background The aim of this study was to develop and validate a specific Patient Benefit Index (PBI) version for the treatment of peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Patients and methods A non-interventional longitudinal development study was conducted. The first phase comprised a qualitative pre-study with n = 50 patients, in which the PBI was adapted for peripheral arterial disease. The resulting Patient Benefit Index for peripheral arterial disease (PBI-PAD) was validated in the second phase at two points of measurement. The total PBI-PAD score was calculated by weighting item-wise the achievement of treatment goals with the initially assessed needs. Feasibility, internal consistency, and construct validity were analysed and the generic three level version of the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) and the disease-specific instrument Vascular Quality of Life Questionnaire (VascuQoL) were used for convergent validation. Results In the pre-study, the PBI-PAD, consisting of 12 items, was developed. N = 103 patients participated in the main study. At T2, data were available for n = 57 patients. Mean age was 71.0 years ± 9.1 and 66.7 % of the participants were male. The amount of missing values of the PBI-PAD score was low (< 4.0 %) and no relevant floor effects were observed. Both parts of the PBI (needs at T1 and benefits at T2) were internally consistent with Cronbach’s alpha > 0.7. PBI-PAD total score correlated significantly with the T2-T1-differences of the EuroQol-visual analogue scale (EQ VAS) (r = 0.4, p = 0.007) and the Vascular Quality of Life Questionnaire (r = 0.5, p < 0.001). Conclusions The PBI-PAD is a feasible, internally consistent, and valid instrument to assess patient-relevant benefits in PAD patients receiving minimally invasive treatment or surgical procedures. It can be recommended for use in routine care as well as in clinical studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicole Zander
- 1 Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing (IVDP), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany
| | - Ebru-Berrin Demirel
- 1 Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing (IVDP), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany
| | - Matthias Augustin
- 1 Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing (IVDP), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany
| | - Rachel Sommer
- 1 Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing (IVDP), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany
| | - Eike Sebastian Debus
- 2 Department of Vascular Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany
| | - Peter Breuer
- 3 Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Asklepios Klinik Wandsbek, Hamburg, Germany
| | - Christine Blome
- 1 Institute for Health Services Research in Dermatology and Nursing (IVDP), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|