Atopic Dermatitis Treatment with Topical Therapy Alone Results in Persistent Elevated Disease Severity and High Disease Control Dissatisfaction: Real-World Health Care Professional and Patient Perspectives

P. Lio, Alexandra Golant, Raj Chovatiya, Bob Geng, Louise DeLuca-Carter, Zach Dawson, E. Pierce, James Haughton, Peter Anderson, James Piercy, Linda Stein-Gold
{"title":"Atopic Dermatitis Treatment with Topical Therapy Alone Results in Persistent Elevated Disease Severity and High Disease Control Dissatisfaction: Real-World Health Care Professional and Patient Perspectives","authors":"P. Lio, Alexandra Golant, Raj Chovatiya, Bob Geng, Louise DeLuca-Carter, Zach Dawson, E. Pierce, James Haughton, Peter Anderson, James Piercy, Linda Stein-Gold","doi":"10.25251/skin.8.supp.413","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Given the changing treatment landscape in atopic dermatitis (AD), it is important to understand real-world disease severity and health care professional (HCP) and patient treatment expectations and goals. This study assesses HCP-reported current disease severity and rates of HCP and patient dissatisfaction with current disease control in patients with a history of moderate-to-severe AD. \nMethods: This study was an analysis of data from the United States Adelphi AD Disease Specific Programme™, a cross-sectional, descriptive, real-world study of HCP-completed medical records and patient surveys including retrospective data. The study included patients with a current diagnosis or a history of moderate-to-severe AD. HCPs provided information on current AD severity and treatments. Both HCPs and patients provided information on satisfaction with disease control on current treatment, and reasons for any dissatisfaction. Patients were stratified by their current treatment (systemic + topicals, systemic only, or topicals only). Systemic treatments included injectable biologics, oral small molecules, oral and injected corticosteroids, and immunosuppressants; topical treatments included corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, crisaborole, and ruxolitinib. \nResults A total of 146 HCPs (70 dermatologists, 19 allergists/immunologists, and 57 primary care practitioners) provided data for 747 patients, 215 of whom filled out a patient survey. Based on defined systemic and topical treatments, there were 191 (26%) patients on systemic + topical therapy, 143 (19%) patients on systemics only, and 200 (27%) patients on topicals only. Dissatisfaction rates for AD disease control on current treatment were reported by HCPs and patients for systemic + topicals [20%, 21%], systemic only [10%, 11%], and topicals only [23%, 30%]). The most common reasons for patient dissatisfaction with AD control were the “constant problem of itch,” “lack of clear skin,” “skin lesions that were visible to other people,” and “unresolved flaring.” Despite extended mean treatment duration (MTD), HCPs reported current moderate-to-severe disease severity in 64% of patients on systemic + topicals (MTD 496 days), 50% on systemics only (MTD 456 days), and 61% on topicals only (MTD 268 days). \nConclusion: These descriptive results suggest that many patients still have moderate-to-severe AD despite available treatments. A higher proportion of HCPs and patients were dissatisfied with the current level of disease control when topical therapies alone were prescribed. Patient dissatisfaction with disease control was due to itch, lack of clear skin, visible skin lesions, and flares.","PeriodicalId":22013,"journal":{"name":"SKIN The Journal of Cutaneous Medicine","volume":"9 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SKIN The Journal of Cutaneous Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25251/skin.8.supp.413","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Given the changing treatment landscape in atopic dermatitis (AD), it is important to understand real-world disease severity and health care professional (HCP) and patient treatment expectations and goals. This study assesses HCP-reported current disease severity and rates of HCP and patient dissatisfaction with current disease control in patients with a history of moderate-to-severe AD. Methods: This study was an analysis of data from the United States Adelphi AD Disease Specific Programme™, a cross-sectional, descriptive, real-world study of HCP-completed medical records and patient surveys including retrospective data. The study included patients with a current diagnosis or a history of moderate-to-severe AD. HCPs provided information on current AD severity and treatments. Both HCPs and patients provided information on satisfaction with disease control on current treatment, and reasons for any dissatisfaction. Patients were stratified by their current treatment (systemic + topicals, systemic only, or topicals only). Systemic treatments included injectable biologics, oral small molecules, oral and injected corticosteroids, and immunosuppressants; topical treatments included corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, crisaborole, and ruxolitinib. Results A total of 146 HCPs (70 dermatologists, 19 allergists/immunologists, and 57 primary care practitioners) provided data for 747 patients, 215 of whom filled out a patient survey. Based on defined systemic and topical treatments, there were 191 (26%) patients on systemic + topical therapy, 143 (19%) patients on systemics only, and 200 (27%) patients on topicals only. Dissatisfaction rates for AD disease control on current treatment were reported by HCPs and patients for systemic + topicals [20%, 21%], systemic only [10%, 11%], and topicals only [23%, 30%]). The most common reasons for patient dissatisfaction with AD control were the “constant problem of itch,” “lack of clear skin,” “skin lesions that were visible to other people,” and “unresolved flaring.” Despite extended mean treatment duration (MTD), HCPs reported current moderate-to-severe disease severity in 64% of patients on systemic + topicals (MTD 496 days), 50% on systemics only (MTD 456 days), and 61% on topicals only (MTD 268 days). Conclusion: These descriptive results suggest that many patients still have moderate-to-severe AD despite available treatments. A higher proportion of HCPs and patients were dissatisfied with the current level of disease control when topical therapies alone were prescribed. Patient dissatisfaction with disease control was due to itch, lack of clear skin, visible skin lesions, and flares.
仅采用局部疗法治疗特应性皮炎会导致疾病严重程度持续升高和对疾病控制的高度不满意:现实世界中医护人员和患者的观点
背景:鉴于特应性皮炎(AD)的治疗环境不断变化,了解真实世界的疾病严重程度以及医护人员(HCP)和患者的治疗期望和目标非常重要。本研究评估了有中度至重度特应性皮炎病史的患者中由医护人员报告的当前疾病严重程度以及医护人员和患者对当前疾病控制的不满意率。方法:本研究分析了美国阿德尔菲AD疾病专项计划(Adelphi AD Disease Specific Programme™)的数据,该计划是一项横断面、描述性、真实世界研究,研究对象是由HCP填写的医疗记录和患者调查,包括回顾性数据。研究对象包括目前已确诊或有中重度注意力缺失症病史的患者。保健医生提供了有关当前注意力缺失症严重程度和治疗方法的信息。保健医生和患者均提供了对当前治疗的疾病控制满意度的信息,以及不满意的原因。患者按其当前治疗方法(全身治疗+局部治疗、仅全身治疗或仅局部治疗)进行了分层。全身治疗包括注射用生物制剂、口服小分子药物、口服和注射皮质类固醇激素以及免疫抑制剂;局部治疗包括皮质类固醇激素、降钙素抑制剂、脆铂和芦索利替尼。结果 共有 146 名保健医生(70 名皮肤科医生、19 名过敏/免疫科医生和 57 名初级保健医生)提供了 747 名患者的数据,其中 215 人填写了患者调查表。根据确定的全身和局部治疗方法,有 191 名(26%)患者接受全身+局部治疗,143 名(19%)患者只接受全身治疗,200 名(27%)患者只接受局部治疗。保健医生和患者对目前治疗中 AD 疾病控制的不满意率分别为:全身用药+局部用药[20%,21%],只用全身用药[10%,11%],只用局部用药[23%,30%])。患者对 AD 控制不满意的最常见原因是 "一直有痒的问题"、"皮肤不光滑"、"其他人能看到皮损 "和 "未解决的皮损"。尽管延长了平均疗程(MTD),但据高级保健医生报告,64%的患者目前的疾病严重程度为中度至重度,其中64%的患者接受了全身用药+外用药治疗(MTD为496天),50%的患者仅接受了全身用药治疗(MTD为456天),61%的患者仅接受了外用药治疗(MTD为268天)。结论这些描述性结果表明,尽管有可用的治疗方法,但仍有许多患者患有中度至重度注意力缺失症。如果仅使用外用疗法,则有较高比例的保健医生和患者对目前的疾病控制水平不满意。患者对疾病控制不满意的原因包括瘙痒、皮肤不光滑、皮损明显和复发。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信