MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2954357071 · doi:10.1111/bjd.18309

Defining lesional, perilesional and unaffected skin in hidradenitis suppurativa: proposed recommendations for clinical trials and translational research studies

2019· letter· en· W2954357071 sur OpenAlexaff
John W. Frew, Kristina Navrazhina, Angel S. Byrd, Amit Garg, John R Ingram, Joslyn S. Kirby, Michelle A. Lowes, Haley B. Naik, Vincent Piguet, Errol P. Prens

Notice bibliographique

RevueBritish Journal of Dermatology · 2019
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHidradenitis Suppurativa and Treatments
Établissements canadiensWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases
Mots-clésHidradenitis suppurativaMedicineDermatologyClinical trialTranslational researchSurgeryPathologyDisease

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Dear Editor, Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic, recurring inflammatory skin condition for which the pathogenesis is not completely elucidated.1 With the increase in HS‐related research comes the need to enhance the reproducibility, quality and accuracy of scientific methods. Unlike in other inflammatory dermatoses such as psoriasis or atopic dermatitis, HS lesions are morphologically diverse and include nodules, abscesses, tunnels and fibrosis in various permutations and combinations admixed in the same anatomical region.1 This makes general definitions such as ‘lesional’ and ‘nonlesional’ insufficient for HS‐related investigations. A definition for nonlesional skin is lacking. Accurate assessment of the pathophysiological changes in HS lesions (and the response to therapeutics) requires standardized definitions of lesional, perilesional and unaffected skin biopsies. This is especially pertinent given the well‐characterized compartmentalization of cytokines in HS,2 indicating that serum inflammatory markers may not accurately reflect the inflammatory milieu of lesional HS tissue.2 An additional complicating factor is the unique inflammatory environment of healthy axillae, groin and submammary folds, with an increased interleukin‐17 and innate immune signature.3 This makes it crucial to ensure that unaffected skin samples are taken from a site that ensures an accurate comparison. For control specimens, or samples from healthy volunteers, the use of surgical discard from abdominoplasty is problematic given the unique immunological milieu of apocrine‐rich (axillary, inguinal, submammary) skin.3 The use of region‐matched control tissue is vital to avoid overestimation of the relative change of T helper 17 cells and other innate immune markers. Region matching should occur for intertriginous sites as well as less common sites (e.g. neck, postauricular, limbs). Ideally, healthy control skin should only be used after a careful patient history is taken, and it should also be matched for other criteria such as age, sex, smoking status and ethnicity. Examination of the existing literature4 pertaining to inflammatory mediators in HS identified two high‐quality studies with a priori definitions of biopsy sites.5,6 Lesional skin was defined as the edge of an inflammatory lesion, perilesional as normal‐appearing skin 2 cm away from the inflammatory lesion, and unaffected skin as normal‐appearing skin ≥ 10 cm distant. An important caveat is that the reference lesion in these studies requires a priori definition. For the majority of published studies this was an inflammatory nodule. Biopsies for tunnels may require deeper full‐dermal tissue sampling. It is known that histologically fibrotic tissue attenuates the levels of inflammatory mediators compared with nonfibrotic tissue, and the invasive proliferative gelatinous mass of HS tunnels has a specific cytokine signature distinct from that of lesional tissue.7 Therefore, classifying the reference lesion (nodule, tunnel, hypertrophic scar) is crucial for comparison across studies. The presence of dermal tunnels may introduce unintended pathology, which can be difficult to appreciate clinically (even after careful palpation), and hence ultrasound is a useful noninvasive assessment tool to identify dermal tunnels and deep abscesses in order to avoid inadvertent biopsy of a lesion in place of a control sample. In the context of clinical trials, assessment of lesional tissue is often an exploratory end point8 given the lack of biomarkers in HS. While the data are not considered a primary or secondary end point, they do contribute to the existing knowledge of pathophysiology of disease. Therefore, based upon the existing literature (and the authors’ combined experience) we propose the following recommendations: (i) samples should be obtained from three sites: lesional, perilesional and unaffected skin; (ii) the definitions of lesional, perilesional and unaffected skin are as presented in Figure 1; (iii) the anatomical region of the lesion should be recorded; (iv) the lesion morphology should be classified (e.g. inflammatory nodule, abscess, tunnel etc.) and (v) unaffected skin of patients with HS and control samples (taken from healthy volunteers) should be region matched to lesional and perilesional samples (i.e. within the same anatomical region). Biopsy definition recommendations for hidradenitis suppurativa. In the absence of clear standards for HS tissue sampling, these expert recommendations seek to begin this process. Consensus among stakeholders is needed on a valid and reliable approach to tissue sampling, so that these strategies can be implemented in future studies. The next step is to create a coherent consensus and this work is underway. Funding sources: none. Conflicts of interest: A.S.B. is a subinvestigator for Eli Lilly. A.G. has served as an advisor for AbbVie, Amgen, Asana Biosciences, Pfizer, Janssen and UCB, and has received honoraria. J.R.I. is a consultant to UCB Pharma and Novartis and has received travel expenses from AbbVie. M.A.L. has received fees for participating in advisory boards for AbbVie and Janssen, and consulting fees from Incyte, BSN, XBiotech and Almirall. V.P. reports receiving educational grants in his role as Department Division Director, Dermatology, University of Toronto (on behalf of the Division of Dermatology Residency Program) from AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen, Naos, Lilly, Sanofi and Valeant; and nonfinancial support from La Roche‐Posay, outside the submitted work. V.P. has also participated in advisory boards for AbbVie, Celgene, Janssen and Novartis. None of these associations has conflict with the present study. The remaining authors declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,174
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,271
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,826
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,919

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,1740,271
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0080,005
Bibliométrie0,0040,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0040,015
Communication savante0,0130,019
Science ouverte0,0080,007
Intégrité de la recherche0,0720,049
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,010

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,359
Tête enseignante GPT0,539
Écart entre enseignants0,180 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
DomaineMéthodes
GenreMéthodes

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations40
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBritish Journal of DermatologyMême sujetHidradenitis Suppurativa and TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207