A systematic review of Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) in atopic dermatitis (AD) trials: Many options, no standards

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Masaki Futamura ; MD ; PhD^b ; Yael A. Leshem ; MD^c ; Kim S. Thomas ; PhD^a ; Helen Nankervis ; PhD^a ; Hywel C. Williams ; DSc ; FMedSci^a ; Eric L. Simpson ; MD ; MCR^c ; ^{simpsone@ohsu.edu" class="auth_mail" title="E-mail the corresponding author}
• 关键词：atopic dermatitis ; atopic eczema ; global assessment ; Investigator Global Assessment ; outcome measure ; randomized controlled trial ; severity ; systematic review
• 刊名：Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：February 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：74
• 期：2
• 页码：288-294
• 全文大小：298 K

文摘

Investigators often use global assessments to provide a snapshot of overall disease severity in dermatologic clinical trials. Although easy to perform, the frequency of use and standardization of global assessments in studies of atopic dermatitis (AD) is unclear.

Objectives

We sought to assess the frequency, definitions, and methods of analysis of Investigator Global Assessment in randomized controlled trials of AD.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review using all published randomized controlled trials of AD treatments in the Global Resource of Eczema Trials database (2000-2014). We determined the frequency of global scales application and defining features.

Results

Among 317 trials identified, 101 trials (32%) used an investigator-performed global assessment as an outcome measure. There was large variability in global assessments between studies in nomenclature, scale size, definitions, outcome description, and analysis. Both static and dynamic scales were identified that ranged from 4- to 7-point scales. North American studies used global assessments more commonly than studies from other countries.

Limitations

The search was restricted to the Global Resource of Eczema Trials database.

Conclusion

Global assessments are used frequently in studies of AD, but their complete lack of standardized definitions and implementation preclude any meaningful comparisons between studies, which in turn impedes data synthesis to inform clinical decision-making. Standardization is urgently required.