Dataset Information

Psoriasis Severity Assessment Combining Physician and Patient Reported Outcomes: The Optimal Psoriasis Assessment Tool.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) assessment is complex and time-consuming. A simpler assessment measure more sensitive to changes in symptom severity and predictive of patients' quality of life (Dermatology Life Quality Index, DLQI) is needed. This study aims to evaluate the Optimal Psoriasis Assessment Tool (OPAT) as an alternative to PASI.

Methods

This integrated analysis of three UNCOVER trials (NCT01474512, NCT01597245, and NCT01646177) randomized patients (N = 3866) with moderate-to-severe psoriasis to subcutaneously administered ixekizumab 80 mg Q2W or Q4W, or placebo or etanercept 50 mg Q2W. Pearson correlations were computed for clinical and patient-reported measures with PASI and DLQI.

Results

As the correlations with PASI and BSA were high and not much higher when adding severity, body surface area (BSA) was used for the clinical measure. BSA was the main measure influencing OPAT. Week 12 regression analyses results showed that PASI had a higher correlation with BSA combined with patient assessments than with BSA alone. Sensitivity analyses were also completed for PASI 75 and 90. For DLQI, correlations with the combined measures were even stronger than with BSA alone. A comprehensive model selection procedure was conducted, which illustrated that the two-term models are preferred.

Conclusion

The OPAT is a simple and time-saving alternative to PASI. It can be derived using BSA and patient-reported assessments having strong correlation with PASI and moderate correlation with DLQI.

SUBMITTER: Leonardi C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8322262 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionEnthesitis is a core outcome domain assessed in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) clinical trials. Limited evidence describes the impact of enthesitis on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and physician satisfaction with current treatment options. The objective of this analysis is to characterize the impact of enthesitis on PROs and physician satisfaction with currently available treatment in clinical practice settings.MethodsCross-sectional survey of rheumatologists, dermatologists, and their consulting patients with PsA in Australia, Canada, European Union (EU5), and the USA conducted in 2018. Physicians assessed current presence and severity of enthesitis, overall disease severity, other symptoms experienced, and their satisfaction with the current treatment. PsA participant self-reported data included current pain level, EQ5D, Psoriatic Arthritis Impact of Disease (PsAID12), Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Index (WPAI-SHP). Bivariate descriptive analyses were conducted to describe features and outcomes in participants with and without enthesitis.ResultsRheumatologists (454) and dermatologists (238) provided information for 3157 participants with PsA. Mean participant age was 49.2 years, and 45.9% were female. Enthesitis was present currently in 6.5% (205) of participants with PsA. Those with enthesitis had worse overall disease severity compared to those without enthesitis (12.2% vs 2.2% severe) and had more extraarticular manifestations, including nail psoriasis, dactylitis, and sacroiliitis. Enthesitis was associated with more pain, worse quality of life (QoL), increased disability, and a negative impact on work. Participants with enthesitis had higher NSAIDs and opioid pain medication use but similar biologic use. Physicians were significantly less satisfied with current PsA treatment in participants with enthesitis versus without enthesitis.ConclusionsParticipants with psoriatic arthritis with enthesitis experienced significantly higher disease burden than those without enthesitis but were not more likely to receive advanced therapies. Physicians were significantly more dissatisfied with treatment in patients with enthesitis than in those without it.

Project description:BackgroundThere is limited understanding of severity rating of atopic dermatitis in clinical practice.ObjectivesTo evaluate the agreement between physician- and patient-rated severity of atopic dermatitis.MethodsData were collected from the 2014 Adelphi US Atopic Dermatitis Disease Specific Programme, a cross-sectional survey of physicians and their patients with a history of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis; patients voluntarily completed a questionnaire. Current disease severity (mild/moderate/severe), based on personal judgment, was rated independently by patients and their physicians. The weighted kappa statistic identified level of agreement between physicians and patients. Bivariate analyses characterized agreement; multi-nomial logistic regression identified factors associated with discordance.ResultsOverall, 678 patients were included (369 [54.4%] were women, 525 [77.4%] were White, mean age was 39.3 years). Agreement was moderate (weighted kappa = 0.52): compared with physician ratings, patient-rated severity was higher in 76 patients (11.2%), lower in 137 patients (20.2%), and matched in 465 patients (68.6%). There were no differences in the rates of agreement between physician and patient ratings based on physician specialty (p = 0.6781), objective severity measures [Eczema Area and Severity Index score (p = 0.5308), percent body surface area affected (p = 0.9872), and current systemic immunosuppressant use (p = 0.9197)]. Multivariate analysis showed patients with a worse quality of life (Dermatology Life Quality Index) were more likely to rate a higher severity (relative risk ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval 1.00-1.08; p = 0.0460). Physicians were more likely to rate a higher severity with a greater physician-reported sleep disturbance (relative risk ratio 1.71, 95% confidence interval 1.01-2.89; p = 0.0440).ConclusionsAlmost one-third of patients rated atopic dermatitis severity differently from their physicians, supporting the importance of the patient perspective in the severity assessment of atopic dermatitis and the need for greater communication between patients and physicians.

Project description:PURPOSE:Accurately tracking health-related quality-of-life after radical prostatectomy is critical to counseling patients and improving technique. Physicians consistently overestimate functional recovery. We measured concordance between surgeon-assessed and patient-reported outcomes and evaluated a novel method to provide feedback to surgeons. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Men treated with radical prostatectomy self-completed the International Index of Erectile Function-6 questionnaire at each postoperative visit. Separately, physicians graded sexual function on a 5-point scale. International Index of Erectile Function -6 score<22 and grade ?3 defined patient-reported and physician-assessed erectile dysfunction (ED), respectively. Feedback on concordance was given to physicians starting in May 2013 with the implementation of the Amplio feedback system. Chi-square tests were used to assess agreement proportions and linear regression to evaluate changes in agreement after implementation. RESULTS:From 2009 to 2015, 3,053 men completed at least 1 postprostatectomy questionnaire and had a concurrent independent physician-reported outcome. Prior to implementation of feedback in 2013, patients and physicians were consistent as to ED 83% of the time; in 10% of cases, physicians overestimated function; in 7% of cases, physicians, but not patients reported ED. Agreement increased after implementation of feedback but this was not statistically significant, likely owing to a ceiling effect. Supporting this hypothesis, increase in agreement postfeedback was greater during late follow-up (?12mo), where baseline agreement was lower compared to earlier follow-up. CONCLUSIONS:Agreement was higher than expected at baseline; implementation of feedback regarding discrepancies between patient-reported and physician-assessed outcomes did not further improve agreement significantly. Our observed high rate of agreement may be partly attributed to our institutional practice of systematically capturing patient-reported outcomes as part of normal clinical care.