Defining and measuring 'eczema control': an international qualitative study to explore the views of those living with and treating atopic eczema

Validity, reliability, responsiveness and interpretability of the Recap of atopic eczema (RECAP) questionnaire

BACKGROUND

Limited research has been conducted on the measurement properties of the Recap of atopic eczema (RECAP) questionnaire, particularly in relation to interpretability.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the validity, reliability, responsiveness and interpretability of the Dutch RECAP in adults with atopic dermatitis (AD).

METHODS

We conducted a prospective study in a Dutch tertiary hospital, recruiting adults with AD between June 2021 and December 2022. Patients completed the RECAP questionnaire, reference instruments and anchor questions at the following three timepoints: baseline, after 1-3 days and after 4-12 weeks. Hypotheses testing was used to investigate single-score validity and change-score validity (responsiveness). To assess reliability, both standard error of measurement (SEMagreement) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICCagreement) were reported. To assess the interpretability of single scores, bands for eczema control were proposed. To investigate the interpretability of change scores, both smallest detectable change (SDC) and minimally important change (MIC) scores were determined. To estimate the MIC scores, four different anchor-based methods were employed: the mean change method, 95% limit cut-off point, receiver operating characteristic curve and predictive modelling.

RESULTS

In total, 200 participants were included (57.5% male sex, mean age 38.5 years). Of the a priori hypotheses, 82% (single-score validity) and 59% (responsiveness) were confirmed. Known-group analyses showed differences in the RECAP scores between patient groups based on disease severity and impairment of the quality of life. The SEMagreement was 1.17 points and the ICCagreement was 0.988. The final banding was as follows: 0-1 (completely controlled); 2-5 (mostly controlled); 6-11 (moderately controlled); 12-19 (a little controlled); 20-28 (not at all controlled). Moreover, a single cut-off point of ≥ 6 was determined to identify patients whose AD is not under control. The SDC was 3.2 points, and the MIC value from the predictive modelling was 3.9 points. Neither floor nor ceiling effects were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The RECAP has good single-score validity, moderate responsiveness and excellent reliability. This study fills a gap in the interpretability of the RECAP. Our results indicate a threshold of ≥ 6 points to identify patients whose AD is 'not under control', while an improvement of ≥ 4 points represents a clinically important change. Given its endorsement by the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema initiatives, the results of this study support the integration of RECAP into both routine clinical practice and research settings.

Current Utilization of Qualitative Methodologies in Dermatology: A Scoping Review

The focus of this review was to determine how qualitative methods are used in dermatology research and whether published manuscripts meet current standards for qualitative research. A scoping review of manuscripts published in English between January 1, 2016 and September 22, 2021 was conducted. A coding document was developed to collect information on authors, methodology, participants, research theme, and the presence of quality criteria as outlined by the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research. Manuscripts were included if they described original qualitative research about dermatologic conditions or topics of primary interest to dermatology. An adjacency search yielded 372 manuscripts, and after screening, 134 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies utilized interviews or focus groups, and researchers predominantly selected participants on the basis of disease status, including over 30 common and rare dermatologic conditions. Research themes frequently included patient experience of disease, development of patient-reported outcomes, and descriptions of provider and caregiver experiences. Although most authors explained their analysis and sampling strategy and included empirical data, few referenced qualitative data reporting standards. Missed opportunities for qualitative methods in dermatology include examination of health disparities, exploration of surgical and cosmetic dermatology experiences, and determination of the lived experience of and provider attitudes toward diverse patient populations.

Needs and preferences of patients regarding atopic dermatitis care in the era of new therapeutic options: a qualitative study

To optimally tailor atopic dermatitis (AD) care to patients' needs, especially considering the many emerging therapeutic options, insight into patients' needs and preferences regarding AD care is needed. To explore patients' needs and preferences regarding AD care, a qualitative study consisting of three focus groups with a total of 20 adult AD patients was conducted. All sessions were transcribed verbatim and inductively analyzed using several phases of coding to create an overview of patients' needs and preferences. AD patients emphasized the need for a patient-tailored approach in all identified aspects of AD care. With regard to consultations, patients stressed the need for a personal approach and increased recognition of the disease impact, which should mainly be determined by patients. With regard to the organization of AD care, the need for psychosocial and medical supportive care as well as quick access to health-care providers during disease flares was emphasized. Within the decision-making process, patients indicated that the provided information, the role of the patient and physician, whether or not treatment goals should be set, and decisive factors for indication and feasibility of novel therapies should be patient dependent. AD care should be patient tailored with increased attention for the psychosocial burden, as well as better access to health care during disease flares. To provide patient-tailored care, the personal situation, needs, and preferences of the patient should be taken into account in the therapeutic decision-making process, with respect for the autonomy of the patient.

Content validity of the Recap of atopic eczema (RECAP) instrument in Dutch, English and German to measure eczema control in young people with atopic eczema: a cognitive interview study

BACKGROUND

Recap of atopic eczema (RECAP) is a patient-reported outcome measure assessing eczema control. This instrument has been developed and validated in the UK. There are self-reported and proxy-reported versions in English, Dutch and German. However, it is unclear whether the self-reported version shows adequate content validity when completed by young people (8-16 years) in these languages.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the content validity (comprehensibility, relevance and comprehensiveness) of the English, German and Dutch versions of the self-reported RECAP in young people with atopic eczema and to identify the most appropriate age cutoff for self-completion.

METHODS

We conducted 23 semistructured cognitive interviews with young people aged 8-16 years, using the 'think-aloud' method. In Germany and the Netherlands, participants were recruited in dermatology clinics and in the UK through social media and existing mailing lists. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed in the three languages, using a problem-focused coding manual. Transcripts were coded by two independent reviewers in each country. Themes were translated into English and compared across the three countries.

RESULTS

Significant age-related comprehensibility issues with the last three items of the questionnaire occurred with young people aged 8-11 years, causing difficulties completing RECAP without help. However, older children had only minor problems and were able to complete the questionnaire by themselves. The self-reported version of RECAP has sufficient content validity for self-completion in young people aged 12 years and above. However, the German version with some translational adaptations may be appropriate for children from the age of 8 years. There may be some situations where the proxy version is needed for older children too.

CONCLUSIONS

The self-reported version of RECAP is appropriate for use from the age of 12 years. The proxy version can be used in children younger than 12 years. Other measurement properties should be further investigated. What is already known about this topic? Recap of atopic eczema (RECAP) is an instrument recommended by the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema initiative for the core outcome domain of long-term control of atopic eczema. Content validity of RECAP for self-completion by adults and of the proxy version has been assessed. What does this study add? In this study, content validity (comprehensibility, relevance and comprehensiveness) of the self-reported version of RECAP among young people (aged 8-16 years) with atopic eczema across the UK, Germany and the Netherlands is assessed. Based on these findings, key recommendations on how to measure eczema control in young people with atopic eczema are formulated. What are the clinical implications of this work? The Dutch, English and German self-completion versions of RECAP are recommended for use in adolescents from the age of 12 years. The proxy version could be used in children younger than 12 years or where children are cognitively or physically incapable of reporting their experience of eczema control. Caregivers should be encouraged to complete RECAP together with their child where possible.

Systemic treatment of children and adolescents with atopic dermatitis aged ≥2 years: a Delphi consensus project mapping expert opinion in Northern Europe

BACKGROUND

Paediatric atopic dermatitis (AD) can be burdensome, affecting mental health and impairing quality of life for children and caregivers. Comprehensive guidelines exist for managing paediatric AD, but practical guidance on using systemic therapy is limited, particularly for new therapies including biologics and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors, recently approved for various ages in this indication.

OBJECTIVES

This expert consensus aimed to provide practical recommendations within this advancing field to enhance clinical decision-making on the use of these and other systemics for children and adolescents aged ≥2 years with moderate-to-severe AD.

METHODS

Nineteen physicians from Northern Europe were selected for their expertise in managing childhood AD. Using a two-round Delphi process, they reached full or partial consensus on 37 statements.

RESULTS

Systemic therapy is recommended for children aged ≥2 years with a clear clinical diagnosis of severe AD and persistent disease uncontrolled after optimizing non-systemic therapy. Systemic therapy should achieve long-term disease control and reduce short-term interventions. Recommended are cyclosporine A for short-term use (all ages) and dupilumab or methotrexate for long-term use (ages ≥6 years). Consensus was not reached on the best long-term systemics for children aged 2-6 years, although new systemic therapies will likely become favourable: New biologics and JAK inhibitors will soon be approved for this age group, and more trial and real-world data will become available.

CONCLUSIONS

This article makes practical recommendations on the use of systemic AD treatments for children and adolescents, to supplement international and regional guidelines. It considers the systemic medication that was available for children and adolescents with moderate-to-severe AD at the time this consensus project was done: azathioprine, cyclosporine A, dupilumab, methotrexate, mycophenolate mofetil and oral glucocorticosteroids. We focus on the geographically similar Northern European countries, whose healthcare systems, local preferences for AD management and reimbursement structures nonetheless differ significantly.

Evaluating the Longitudinal Course of Atopic Dermatitis: Implications for Clinical Practice

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is characterized by a heterogenous longitudinal course with varying severity, flares, and persistence. However, AD course is not routinely assessed in clinical practice or controlled trials. Our objective was to review the longitudinal course of AD in children and adults and discuss implications for routine practice and clinical trials. We conducted a focused review of the published literature, including retrospective, prospective, and interventional studies, clinical trials, and consensus guidelines. Estimates of AD persistence varied widely across studies but suggested that AD can indeed persist through childhood and into adulthood. Predictors of persistence are broad and include both disease-intrinsic and disease-extrinsic (i.e., environmental) factors. In real-world practice, most individuals with AD experience fluctuations in the signs and symptoms over time and do not experience persistent clearance of skin lesions. Clinical trials use mainly static measurements that do not take into account fluctuations in course, which may confound treatment effects. The heterogenous temporal pattern of AD can be incorporated into routine practice to better set expectations and offer a realistic prognosis. AD course should be routinely incorporated into clinical decision making. Future studies are needed to develop a standardized approach to AD assessment and treatment that includes longitudinal course.

Eczema control and treatment satisfaction in atopic dermatitis patients treated with dupilumab - a cross-sectional study from the BioDay registry

BACKGROUND

Eczema control is a new construct to be measured in atopic dermatitis (AD).

OBJECTIVES

Measuring patient-perceived eczema control and treatment satisfaction in AD patients, treated with dupilumab between 16 and 52 weeks.

METHODS

Cross-sectional questionnaire study. Patients from the Dutch BioDay registry completed the Atopic Dermatitis Control Test (ADCT), Recap of Atopic Eczema (RECAP) and Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication, Version II (TSQM v. II), along with other Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs).

RESULTS

104/157 patients responded (response rate 66.2%). Median ADCT score was 4 (interquartile range [IQR] 5); median RECAP score was 5 (IQR 6); median TSQM v.II global satisfaction score was 83.3 (IQR 25.0). According to the ADCT, 38.5-66.3% perceived their AD was 'in control', depending on the interpretability method used. Minimally clinically important difference (MCID) of ≥4 points for the DLQI and POEM was achieved respectively in N = 66 (84.6%) and N = 63 (78.8%) patients.

CONCLUSION

When considering the favorable scores on other PROMs and the TSQM v. II, and comparing these to the relatively low percentage of patients perceiving control according to the ADCT, interpretability of eczema control still appears difficult. Treatment satisfaction in the studied cohort was high.

Measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures for eczema control: a systematic review

Atopic eczema (herein referred to as 'eczema') is a skin disease characterized by remitting and relapsing symptoms. The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative was developed to establish a core outcome set (COS) for eczema to be measured for all future eczema trials. The core outcome set for atopic eczema clinical trials includes the domain for patient-reported eczema control, but a review of the validation of available eczema control instruments was lacking. We aimed to review the literature and systematically assess the measurement properties of validated patient-reported outcome instruments that capture eczema control. PubMed and Ovid EMBASE were searched up to 24 January 2020 for any study that reported on PROM instrument development or validation. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) criteria were used to assess the quality of eligible studies. We screened 12 036 titles and abstracts and 58 full texts. A total of 12 papers were included, reporting on seven PROMS. These were assessed with respect to development, reliability, construct validity and responsiveness. Two instruments, Recap of Atopic Eczema (RECAP) and the Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool (ADCT), have been developed and validated to a sufficient standard to support their recommendation as patient-reported outcome instruments for measuring control of atopic eczema as part of the HOME Core Outcome Set.

Recommended core outcome instruments for health-related quality of life, long-term control and itch intensity in atopic eczema trials: results of the HOME VII consensus meeting

Background

The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative has established a core outcome set of domains for atopic eczema (AE) clinical trials. Previous consensus meetings have agreed on preferred instruments for clinician‐reported signs (Eczema Area and Severity Index, EASI) and patient‐reported symptoms (Patient‐Oriented Eczema Measure, POEM). This paper reports consensus decisions from the HOME VII meeting.

Objectives

To complete the core outcome set for AE by agreeing on core outcome instruments for the domains of quality of life (QoL), long‐term control and itch intensity.

Methods

A face‐to‐face consensus meeting was held in Tokyo, Japan (8–10 April 2019) including 75 participants (49 healthcare professionals/methodologists, 14 patients, 12 industry representatives) from 16 countries. Consensus decisions were made by presentations of evidence, followed by whole and small group discussions and anonymous voting using predefined consensus rules.

Results

It was agreed by consensus that QoL should be measured using the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) for adults, the Children’s Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI) for children and the Infant’s Dermatology Quality of Life Index (IDQoL) for infants. For long‐term control, the Recap of Atopic Eczema (RECAP) instrument or the Atopic Dermatitis Control Test (ADCT) should be used. Consensus was not reached over the frequency of data collection for long‐term control. The peak itch numerical rating scale (NRS)‐11 past 24 h was recommended as an additional instrument for the symptom domain in trials of older children and adults. Agreement was reached that all core outcome instruments should be captured at baseline and at the time of primary outcome assessment as a minimum.

Conclusions

For now, the core outcome set for clinical trials in AE is complete. The specified domains and instruments should be used in all new clinical trials and systematic reviews of eczema treatments.

What is already known about this topic?

Core outcomes sets improve the design and reporting of clinical trials, reduce selective outcome reporting bias and facilitate meta‐analysis of results in systematic reviews.

The HOME core outcome set for eczema recommends the inclusion of four core domains in all atopic eczema trials: clinician‐reported signs, patient‐reported symptoms, health‐related quality of life (HrQoL) and long‐term control.

Clinician‐reported signs should be captured using the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) and patient‐reported symptoms using the Patient‐Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM).

What does this study add?

The HOME core outcome set is now complete and recommended core outcome instruments have been agreed on for all four domains.

Core outcome instruments for HrQoL: Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) for adults, Children’s Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI) for children and Infant’s Dermatology Quality of Life Index (IDQoL) for infants.

Core outcome instruments for long‐term control: either the Recap of Atopic Eczema (RECAP) or the Atopic Dermatitis Control Test (ADCT).

In addition, itch intensity should be measured using the peak NRS‐11 past 24 h for trials including older children and adults.

What are the clinical implications of this work?

If all future trials of eczema treatments include the HOME core outcome instruments, then trial results will be more readily incorporated into meta‐analyses in systematic reviews and clinical care will be informed by the best available evidence.

Linked Comment: D.F. Murrell and C.F. Paul. Br J Dermatol 2021; 185:13–14.

Development and initial testing of a new instrument to measure the experience of eczema control in adults and children: Recap of atopic eczema (RECAP)

Background

Eczema control has been identified as an important outcome by key stakeholders in eczema research (including patients, carers, healthcare professionals and researchers) but no validated instruments for the domain have been identified.

Objectives

To develop a measurement instrument to capture a patient's perspective of eczema control that is suitable for use in eczema clinical trials.

Methods

Best practice for the development of a patient‐reported outcome was followed. A mixed‐methods approach was used to develop and refine a conceptual framework, generate, refine and select items and to test the distribution and construct validity of the final scale. The mixed‐methods approach involved expert panel meetings (including patient representatives, healthcare professionals and methodologists), and data collection using a focus group, cognitive interviews and an online survey with people with eczema and caregivers. Multivariable linear regression was used in the item selection process.

Results

Fourteen expert panel members co‐produced the instrument, with input from people with eczema and caregivers via a focus group (n = 6), cognitive interviews (n = 13) and an online survey (n = 330). The resulting instrument, Recap of atopic eczema (RECAP), is a seven‐item questionnaire that captures eczema control via self or caregiver report. The development process aimed to ensure good content validity and feasibility. Initial testing suggested no floor or ceiling effects and good construct validity. Hypothesized correlation with the Patient‐Oriented Eczema Measure was confirmed [r(258) = 0·83, P < 0·001].

Conclusions

RECAP has the potential to improve reporting of eczema control in research and clinical practice. Further exploration of measurement properties is required.

Linked Comment: Pattinson and Bundy. Br J Dermatol 2020; 183:418–419.

What's already known about this topic?

Eczema control has been identified as an important outcome by key stakeholders in eczema research (including patients, carers, healthcare professionals and researchers).

Qualitative studies suggest eczema control is a multifaceted and individual experience and no instrument has been identified that captures eczema control in this way.

What does this study add?

We have developed Recap of atopic eczema (RECAP), a seven‐item questionnaire to capture the experience of eczema control in all ages and eczema severities; there are two versions: a self‐reported version for adults and older children with eczema, and a caregiver‐reported version for younger children with eczema.

Designed with input from people with eczema, caregivers and healthcare professionals to ensure good content validity.

Initial testing of score distributions and construct validity suggests good measurement properties.

What are the clinical implications of the work?

The RECAP instrument is appropriate and feasible for measuring eczema control in clinical trials and may also be useful in routine practice.

Linked Comment: Pattinson and Bundy. Br J Dermatol 2020; 183:418–419.

Plain language summary available online

Defining Symptom Concepts in Chronic Subjective Tinnitus: Web-Based Discussion Forum Study

Background

A minimum standard based upon consensus decision making recommends a core set of tinnitus-specific health complaints (outcome domains) that should be assessed and reported in all clinical trials as this enables comparisons to be made across studies as well as data pooling for meta-analysis.

Objective

This study aimed to further clarify how the outcome domain concepts should be defined for 5 of the core set: tinnitus intrusiveness, sense of control, acceptance of tinnitus, concentration, and ability to ignore. This step requires a clear and fully elaborated definition for each outcome domain, moving from an abstract or a vague concept to an operationalized and measurable health-related construct, so that a suitable measurement instrument can then be identified.

Methods

A series of 5 focus group–style semistructured discussions were conducted via a Web-based discussion forum, each open for 2 weeks and ending with a vote. The participants included 148 tinnitus experts who completed a preceding e-Delphi survey that had generated the original set of minimum standards. The participants were health care users living with tinnitus, health care professionals, clinical researchers, commercial representatives, and funders.

Results

The Web discussions led to a revision of all 5 original plain language definitions that had been used in the preceding e-Delphi survey. Each revised definition was voted by 8 to 53 participants and reached the prespecified threshold of 70% consensus for all except tinnitus intrusiveness. Although a single definition was not agreed upon for tinnitus intrusiveness, the majority of participants shared the view that the concept should be sufficiently broad to encapsulate a range of subdomains. The examples included tinnitus awareness, unpleasantness, and impact on different aspects of everyday life. Thematic analysis of the 5 Web-based discussion threads gave important insights into expert interpretations of each core outcome domain, generating an operationalized and measurable health construct in each case.

Conclusions

The qualitative data gathered during the Web-based discussion forum provided an important in-depth understanding of the health concepts that had raised a debate during earlier face-to-face meetings. The descriptive summaries and definitions provide sufficient operationalization of those concepts to proceed to the second stage of core outcome set development that is to identify and evaluate suitable measurement instruments. This study supports the use of Web-based peer discussion forums in defining health concepts.