|
2
|
Kamal K, Xia E, Li SJ, Alavi A, Cogen AL, Firooz A, Marzano AV, Kaffenberger BH, Sibbald C, Fernandez AP, Callen JP, Dissemond J, Gontijo JRV, Shams K, Gerbens LA, French LE, Gould LJ, Bissonnette R, Shaigany S, Tolkachjov S, Yamamoto T, Wei-Ting Huang W, Ortega-Loayza AG, Mostaghimi A. Eligibility Criteria for Active Ulcerative Pyoderma Gangrenosum in Clinical Trials: A Delphi Consensus on Behalf of the UPGRADE (Understanding Pyoderma Gangrenosum: Review and Assessment of Disease Effects) Group. J Invest Dermatol 2023:S0022-202X(23)03193-7. [PMID: 38110114 DOI: 10.1016/j.jid.2023.12.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/15/2023] [Revised: 12/01/2023] [Accepted: 12/05/2023] [Indexed: 12/20/2023]
Abstract
At present, there are no standardized guidelines for determining patient eligibility for pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) clinical trials. Thus, we aim to determine which clinical features, histopathological features, or laboratory features should be included in active ulcerative PG clinical trial eligibility criteria for treatment-naïve patients and patients already treated with immunomodulating medications (treatment-exposed patients). This study employed 4 rounds of the Delphi technique. Electronic surveys were administered to 21 international board-certified dermatologists and plastic surgeon PG experts (June 2022-December 2022). Our results demonstrated that for a patient to be eligible for a PG trial, they must meet the following criteria: (i) presence of ulcer(s) with erythematous/violaceous undermining wound borders, (ii) presence of a painful or tender ulcer, (iii) history/presence of rapidly progressing disease, (iv) exclusion of infection and other causes of cutaneous ulceration, (v) biopsy for H&E staining, and (vi) a presence/history of pathergy. These criteria vary in importance for treatment-naïve versus treatment-exposed patients. Given the international cohort, we were unable to facilitate live discussions between rounds. This Delphi consensus study provides a set of specific, standardized eligibility criteria for PG clinical trials, thus addressing one of the main issues hampering progress toward Food and Drug Administration approval of medications for PG.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kanika Kamal
- Department of Dermatology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Eric Xia
- Department of Dermatology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Sara J Li
- Department of Dermatology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Tufts Univeresity School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Afsaneh Alavi
- Department of Dermatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Anna L Cogen
- Divison of Dermatology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Alireza Firooz
- Department of Dermatology, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Angelo V Marzano
- Dermatology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy; Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy
| | - Benjamin H Kaffenberger
- Department of Dermatology, Wexner Medical Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA
| | - Cathryn Sibbald
- Division of Pediatric Dermatology, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Anthony P Fernandez
- Department of Dermatology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA; Department of Pathology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
| | - Jeffrey P Callen
- Division of Dermatology, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, Kentucky, USA
| | - Joachim Dissemond
- Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, University Medical Center Essen, Essen, Germany
| | | | - Kave Shams
- Inflammatory Skin Disease Group, Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Louise A Gerbens
- Department of Dermatology, Amsterdam UMC, location Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Lars E French
- Department of Dermatology and Allergy, University Hospital, Ludwig Maximilian University (LMU) Munich, Munich, Germany; Dr. Philip Frost Department of Dermatology and Cutaneous Surgery, Miller School of Medicine, University of Miami, Miami, Florida, USA
| | - Lisa J Gould
- Department of Surgery, South Shore Hospital, South Weymouth, Massachusetts, USA
| | | | - Sheila Shaigany
- Department of Dermatology, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Hempstead, New York, USA
| | - Stanislav Tolkachjov
- Epiphany Dermatology, Dallas, Texas, USA; Department of Dermatology, University of Texas at Southwestern, Dallas, Texas, USA; Texas A&M College of Medicine, Dallas, Texas, USA; Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
| | - Toshiyuki Yamamoto
- Department of Dermatology, Fukushima Medical University, Fukushima, Japan
| | - William Wei-Ting Huang
- Department of Dermatology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston Salem, North Carolina, USA
| | - Alex G Ortega-Loayza
- Department of Dermatology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
| | - Arash Mostaghimi
- Department of Dermatology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
|
3
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND The number of skin substitutes (SS) available for wound care management has increased markedly in the last few decades. This presents a challenge as dermatologists attempt to determine the appropriate setting for a skin substitute use. OBJECTIVE This is a practical review of SS used in dermatologic surgery to assist clinicians in their selection of SS by providing information about the efficacy, risk, availability, shelf-life, and relative cost of the available options. METHODS AND MATERIALS Relevant data were identified through a search of PubMed, a manual search of relevant company websites, a manual search of the reference sections of relevant papers, and communicating with subject experts. RESULTS SS can be divided into 7 categories based on composition: amnion, cultured epithelial autograft, acellular allograft, cellular allografts, xenografts, composites, and synthetics. These groups offer unique benefits and disadvantages that are outlined in the manuscript and tables. CONCLUSION Considerations of the characteristics, settings of use, and efficacies of SS may allow more effective wound care and the potential for faster healing times. Additional studies are needed to evaluate and compare the healing benefits of these substitutes. Trials comparing the efficacy of each of the common SS vs each other and granulation are needed. J Drugs Dermatol. 2023;22(5): doi:10.36849/JDD.7132.
Collapse
|