John W Frew1, Caroline S Jiang2, Neha Singh2, David Grand3, Kristina Navrazhina4, Roger Vaughan2, James G Krueger5. 1. Laboratory of Investigative Dermatology, The Rockefeller University, New York, New York. Electronic address: jfrew@rockefeller.edu. 2. Department of Biostatistics, The Rockefeller University, New York, New York. 3. Laboratory of Investigative Dermatology, The Rockefeller University, New York, New York; Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York. 4. Laboratory of Investigative Dermatology, The Rockefeller University, New York, New York; Weill Cornell/Rockefeller/Sloan Kettering Tri-Institutional MD-PhD Program, Weill Cornell University, New York, New York. 5. Laboratory of Investigative Dermatology, The Rockefeller University, New York, New York.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The hidradenitis suppurativa clinical response (HiSCR) is the gold standard primary outcome measure for hidradenitis suppurativa clinical trials; however, it does not assess the presence of draining tunnels, a common finding in advanced disease. It is unclear what the effect of the presence or absence of draining tunnels has on the efficacy of adalimumab therapy in moderate and advanced disease. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the efficacy of adalimumab versus placebo using the International Hidradenitis Suppurativa Severity Scoring System (IHS4). Additionally, we assessed the effect of draining tunnels on therapeutic response as measured by both the HiSCR and change in nodule counts. METHODS: Reanalysis was conducted with the IHS4 and PIONEER 1 and 2 individual patient data. Both binary outcomes (achieving HiSCR and achieving change in IHS4 severity category) and continuous outcomes (nodule counts and IHS4 score) were calculated with R. Regression modeling was undertaken to assess the effect of draining tunnels and other variables. P < .05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The significance of adalimumab therapy depended on the outcome measure used. Placebo response rates were highest when binary outcome measures were used. Draining tunnels, smoking, antibiotics, and body mass index influenced HiSCR response in PIONEER 2. Significant differences in disease severity were observed between PIONEER 1 and 2 data sets. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated placebo response rates in PIONEER 1 and 2 are partially attributable to the use of binary outcome measures. Draining tunnels influence clinical response as measured by HiSCR and nodule counts in PIONEER 2. Further investigation into the effect of body mass index on clinical response is required.
BACKGROUND: The hidradenitis suppurativa clinical response (HiSCR) is the gold standard primary outcome measure for hidradenitis suppurativa clinical trials; however, it does not assess the presence of draining tunnels, a common finding in advanced disease. It is unclear what the effect of the presence or absence of draining tunnels has on the efficacy of adalimumab therapy in moderate and advanced disease. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the efficacy of adalimumab versus placebo using the International Hidradenitis Suppurativa Severity Scoring System (IHS4). Additionally, we assessed the effect of draining tunnels on therapeutic response as measured by both the HiSCR and change in nodule counts. METHODS: Reanalysis was conducted with the IHS4 and PIONEER 1 and 2 individual patient data. Both binary outcomes (achieving HiSCR and achieving change in IHS4 severity category) and continuous outcomes (nodule counts and IHS4 score) were calculated with R. Regression modeling was undertaken to assess the effect of draining tunnels and other variables. P < .05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The significance of adalimumab therapy depended on the outcome measure used. Placebo response rates were highest when binary outcome measures were used. Draining tunnels, smoking, antibiotics, and body mass index influenced HiSCR response in PIONEER 2. Significant differences in disease severity were observed between PIONEER 1 and 2 data sets. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated placebo response rates in PIONEER 1 and 2 are partially attributable to the use of binary outcome measures. Draining tunnels influence clinical response as measured by HiSCR and nodule counts in PIONEER 2. Further investigation into the effect of body mass index on clinical response is required.
Authors: C C Zouboulis; T Tzellos; A Kyrgidis; G B E Jemec; F G Bechara; E J Giamarellos-Bourboulis; J R Ingram; T Kanni; I Karagiannidis; A Martorell; Ł Matusiak; A Pinter; E P Prens; D Presser; S Schneider-Burrus; E von Stebut; J C Szepietowski; H H van der Zee; S M Wilden; R Sabat Journal: Br J Dermatol Date: 2017-10-30 Impact factor: 9.302
Authors: J M Oldhoff; U Darsow; T Werfel; K Katzer; A Wulf; J Laifaoui; D J Hijnen; S Plötz; E F Knol; A Kapp; C A F M Bruijnzeel-Koomen; J Ring; M S de Bruin-Weller Journal: Allergy Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 13.146
Authors: A B Kimball; G B E Jemec; M Yang; A Kageleiry; J E Signorovitch; M M Okun; Y Gu; K Wang; P Mulani; M Sundaram Journal: Br J Dermatol Date: 2014-11-11 Impact factor: 9.302
Authors: Christos C Zouboulis; Martin M Okun; Errol P Prens; Robert Gniadecki; Peter A Foley; Charles Lynde; Jamie Weisman; Yihua Gu; David A Williams; Gregor B E Jemec Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Alexa B Kimball; Martin M Okun; David A Williams; Alice B Gottlieb; Kim A Papp; Christos C Zouboulis; April W Armstrong; Francisco Kerdel; Michael H Gold; Seth B Forman; Neil J Korman; Evangelos J Giamarellos-Bourboulis; Jeffrey J Crowley; Charles Lynde; Ziad Reguiai; Errol-Prospero Prens; Eihab Alwawi; Nael M Mostafa; Brett Pinsky; Murali Sundaram; Yihua Gu; Dawn M Carlson; Gregor B E Jemec Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-08-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: A B Kimball; J M Sobell; C C Zouboulis; Y Gu; D A Williams; M Sundaram; H D Teixeira; G B E Jemec Journal: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol Date: 2015-07-22 Impact factor: 6.166
Authors: G B E Jemec; M M Okun; S B Forman; W P F Gulliver; E P Prens; U Mrowietz; A W Armstrong; Z Geng; Y Gu; D A Williams; H D Teixeira; A B Kimball Journal: Br J Dermatol Date: 2019-08-14 Impact factor: 9.302
Authors: Kristina Navrazhina; John W Frew; David Grand; Samuel C Williams; Hong Hur; Juana Gonzalez; Sandra Garcet; James G Krueger Journal: Br J Dermatol Date: 2022-06-02 Impact factor: 11.113
Authors: John W Frew; Kristina Navrazhina; David Grand; Mary Sullivan-Whalen; Patricia Gilleaudeau; Sandra Garcet; Jonathan Ungar; James G Krueger Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2020-05-13 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Kristina Navrazhina; John W Frew; Patricia Gilleaudeau; Mary Sullivan-Whalen; Sandra Garcet; James G Krueger Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2021-02-03 Impact factor: 14.290
Authors: Kristina Navrazhina; Sandra Garcet; Juana Gonzalez; David Grand; John W Frew; James G Krueger Journal: J Invest Dermatol Date: 2021-03-22 Impact factor: 7.590
Authors: Samuel Der Sarkissian; Schapoor Hessam; Joslyn S Kirby; Michelle A Lowes; Dillon Mintoff; Haley B Naik; Hans Christian Ring; Nisha Suyien Chandran; John W Frew Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2022-03-01 Impact factor: 11.816
Authors: W Gulliver; A Alavi; M C Wiseman; M J Gooderham; J Rao; M S Alam; K A Papp; O Desjardins; C Jean Journal: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol Date: 2021-08-25 Impact factor: 9.228
Authors: Pim Aarts; Koen Dudink; Allard R J V Vossen; Kelsey R van Straalen; Christine B Ardon; Errol P Prens; Hessel H van der Zee Journal: Drugs Date: 2021-07-20 Impact factor: 9.546