Search

Background Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common, chronic, relapsing, inflammatory skin disease causing a variety of dermatologic signs and symptoms, affecting patientrs quality of life. While treatment options are available, they are of variable effectiveness. This study sought to characterize patient-reported AD signs and symptoms, flare, and associated bother, by disease severity and control. Methods Adults diagnosed with AD were recruited through the National Eczema Association (NEA) and clinical sites and completed a web-based survey including the Patient-Oriented SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (PO-SCORAD), Recap of Atopic Eczema (RECAP), and Skin Pain numeric rating scale (NRS), as well as questions on previous/current clinical presentation, flare frequency and severity, past/ present AD treatment, and sociodemographic characteristics. Results A total of 186 participants completed the survey (mean age 39.7 years, 80% female). The most frequently reported current AD signs and symptoms included dryness, itch, redness, roughness, and flaking skin, and the most bothersome were itch, dryness, and redness (63%). The majority of participants (84%) were either currently experiencing a flare or had experienced one within the past month. The most common signs and symptoms that grew worse during the most recent flare were itch and redness across all disease severity groups. Participants most often experienced one to three flares in the last three months. Flare frequency, duration, and average severity increased with greater disease severity and lack of disease control. Conclusions The results of this study demonstrate the diverse and considerable symptomatic burden experienced by people with AD, even while being treated for AD. J Drugs Dermatol. 2021;20(11):1222-1230. doi:10.36849/JDD.6329.

Purpose Multiple criteria decision analysis swing weighting (SW) and discrete choice experiments (DCE) are appropriate methods for capturing patient preferences on treatment benefit-risk trade-offs. This paper presents a qualitative comparison of the 2 methods. Methods We review and critically assess similarities and differences of SW and DCE based on 6 aspects: comprehension by study participants, cognitive biases, sample representativeness, ability to capture heterogeneity in preferences, reliability and validity, and robustness of the results. Results The SW choice task can be more difficult, but the workshop context in which SW is conducted may provide more support to patients who are unfamiliar with the end points being evaluated or who have cognitive impairments. Both methods are similarly prone to a number of biases associated with preference elicitation, and DCE is prone to simplifying heuristics, which limits its application with large number of attributes. The low cost per patient of the DCE means that it can be better at achieving a representative sample, though SW does not require such large sample sizes due to exact nature of the collected preference data. This also means that internal validity is automatically enforced with SW, while the internal validity of DCE results needs to be assessed manually. Conclusions Choice between the 2 methods depends on characteristics of the benefit-risk assessment, especially on how difficult the trade-offs are for the patients to make and how many patients are available. Although there exist some empirical studies on many of the evaluation aspects, critical evidence gaps remain.

Despite the rapidly growing body of literature on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). placing the results in a context that is meaningful to clinicians and patients is often overlooked.This study sought to quantify the impact of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) on HRQoL by comparing the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) scores of IBS patients with normative US data and with the scores of patients having other chronic gastrointestinal (GI) and non-GI disorders.Two IBS reference groups were identified from the published literature: a largely untreated community sample of health maintenance organization (HMO) members (N = 92) and a sample of patients with IBS recruited through clinics and in the community (N = 140). SF-36 scores for these groups were compared with published US population norms (N = 2474) and with published scores for 3 other IBS samples (N = 464); a sample with other chronic GI disorders (dyspepsia [N = 126], gastroesophageal reflux disease [GERD] [N = 516]); and samples with other chronic episodic disorders (asthma [N = 375], migraine [N = 303], panic disorder [N = 73], rheumatoid arthritis [N = 693]).The scores of patients in both IBS reference groups were significantly lower on several SF-36 domains than those of the US normative population (P0.003). Scores on several SF-36 scales were also significantly lower in the IBS reference groups compared with the GERD, asthma, and migraine samples (P0.003). Depending on the IBS sample used, scores did not differ or were higher compared with those in the sample with dyspepsia. Relative to the samples with panic disorder and rheumatoid arthritis, the IBS groups had significantly higher scores on most SF-36 domains (P0.003). Scores for the HMO reference group were generally higher than those for the clinic/community reference group.Based on the results of this analysis, IBS is associated with impairment of HRQoL relative to US population norms and to populations with GERD, asthma, or migraine. HRQoL appears to be greater in patients with IBS than in those with panic disorder or rheumatoid arthritis, although the relative symptom severity in these samples was not known.