Initial validation of the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Quality of Life tool in a clinical trial setting

Efficacy and safety of the oral Janus kinase 1 inhibitor povorcitinib (INCB054707) in patients with hidradenitis suppurativa in a phase 2, randomized, double-blind, dose-ranging, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Janus kinase 1 inhibition may alleviate hidradenitis suppurativa (HS)-associated inflammation and improve symptoms.

OBJECTIVE

To assess efficacy and safety of povorcitinib (selective oral Janus kinase 1 inhibitor) in HS.

METHODS

This placebo-controlled phase 2 study randomized patients with HS 1:1:1:1 to receive povorcitinib 15, 45, or 75 mg or placebo for 16 weeks. Primary and key secondary end points were mean change from baseline in abscess and inflammatory nodule count and percentage of patients achieving HS Clinical Response at week 16.

RESULTS

Of 209 patients randomized (15 mg, n = 52; 45 mg, n = 52; 75 mg, n = 53; placebo, n = 52), 83.3% completed the 16-week treatment. At week 16, povorcitinib significantly reduced abscess and inflammatory nodule count from baseline (least squares mean [SE] change: 15 mg, -5.2 [0.9], P = .0277; 45 mg, -6.9 [0.9], P = .0006; 75 mg, -6.3 [0.9], P = .0021) versus placebo (-2.5 [0.9]). More povorcitinib-treated patients achieved HS Clinical Response at week 16 (15 mg, 48.1%, P = .0445; 45 mg, 44.2%, P = .0998; 75 mg, 45.3%, P = .0829) versus placebo (28.8%). A total of 60.0% and 65.4% of povorcitinib- and placebo-treated patients had adverse events.

LIMITATIONS

Baseline lesion counts were mildly imbalanced between groups.

CONCLUSION

Povorcitinib demonstrated efficacy in HS, with no evidence of increased incidence of adverse events among doses.

Outcome Measures for the Evaluation of Treatment Response in Hidradenitis Suppurativa for Clinical Practice: A HiSTORIC Consensus Statement

Importance

Although several clinician- and patient-reported outcome measures have been developed for trials in hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), there is currently no consensus on which measures are best suited for use in clinical practice. Identifying validated and feasible measures applicable to the practice setting has the potential to optimize treatment strategies and generate generalizable evidence that may inform treatment guidelines.

Objective

To establish consensus on a core set of clinician- and patient-reported outcome measures recommended for use in clinical practice and to establish the appropriate interval within which these measures should be applied.

Evidence Review

Clinician- and patient-reported HS measures and studies describing their psychometric properties were identified through literature reviews. Identified measures comprised an item reduction survey and subsequent electronic Delphi (e-Delphi) consensus rounds. In each consensus round, a summary of outcome measure components and scoring methods was provided to participants. Experts were provided with feasibility characteristics of clinician measures to aid selection. Consensus was achieved if at least 67% of respondents agreed with use of a measure in clinical practice.

Findings

Among HS experts, response rates for item reduction, e-Delphi round 1, and e-Delphi round 2 surveys were 76.4% (42 of 55), 90.5% (38 of 42), and 92.9% (39 of 42), respectively; among patient research partners (PRPs), response rates were 70.8% (17 of 24), 100% (17 of 17), and 82.4% (14 of 17), respectively. The majority of experts across rounds were practicing dermatologists with 18 to 19 years of clinical experience. In the final e-Delphi round, most PRPs were female (12 [85.7%] vs 2 males [11.8%]) and aged 30 to 49 years. In the final e-Delphi round, HS experts and PRPs agreed with the use of the HS Investigator Global Assessment (28 [71.8%]) and HS Quality of Life score (13 [92.9%]), respectively. The most expert-preferred assessment interval in which to apply these measures was 3 months (27 [69.2%]).

Conclusions and Relevance

An international group of HS experts and PRPs achieved consensus on a core set of HS measures suitable for use in clinical practice. Consistent use of these measures may lead to more accurate assessments of HS disease activity and life outcomes, facilitating shared treatment decision-making in the practice setting.