Background Hyperhidrosis is estimated to affect ~ 4.8% of the US population, and most patients experience a negative psychological impact. Here, we describe development and psychometric evaluation of a patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure to assess severity of axillary hyperhidrosis in clinical trials that meets current U.S. regulatory standards to support product approvals. Methods Three rounds of hybrid concept-elicitation/cognitive-debriefing qualitative interviews were conducted in adults with clinician-diagnosed primary axillary hyperhidrosis, followed by similar interviews in children/adolescents. The draft measure included diary items for presence, severity, impact and bothersomeness (basis of the Axillary Sweating Daily Diary [ASDD]), exploratory weekly impact items, and a single-item Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). Phase 2 (adults only) and phase 3 (adults and children ≥9 years) clinical trial data were utilized to evaluate measurement properties of the resulting draft measure: floor/ceiling effects, nonresponse bias, test-retest reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness were assessed. The primary concept of interest was axillary sweating severity (ASDD Item 2); however, additional supportive concepts were explored to allow for development of a comprehensive hyperhidrosis measure. Results Twenty-nine patient interviews were conducted ( N = 21 adult and N = 8 children/adolescents), resulting in the ASDD (4 items, patients ≥16y) and child-specific ASDD-C (2 items ≥9y to <16y), as well as 6 Weekly Impact items and the PGIC (patients ≥16y). No floor/ceiling effects or response biases were identified. Consistency between hypothesized and observed correlation patterns between ASDD/ASDD-C items and other efficacy measures supported construct validity. Intraclass correlation coefficients supported test-retest reliability (0.91–0.93; Item 2). Large effect sizes (− 2.2 to − 2.4) demonstrated that the ASDD/ASDD-C Item 2 could detect changes in hyperhidrosis severity, supporting the measure’s responsiveness. Patients perceiving a moderate improvement in symptoms on the PGIC experienced an average 3.8-point improvement on ASDD axillary sweating severity (Item 2); thus, a 4-point responder threshold was defined as a clinically meaningful change. Conclusions Qualitative and quantitative evidence support the reliability and validity of the ASDD/ASDD-C and its use in the clinical evaluation of axillary hyperhidrosis treatments. Further evaluation of this measure in future research studies is warranted to demonstrate consistent performance across different axillary hyperhidrosis populations and in different study contexts.
Introduction Hyperhidrosis is associated with social and emotional stress due to limitations on health-related quality of life. This study examined real-world treatment patterns and concomitant depression and/or anxiety in patients with hyperhidrosis. Methods Commercial health plan members in the US with ≥ 2 hyperhidrosis diagnosis codes and/or antiperspirant prescription claims were identified from January 2010 through November 2017. A control cohort (CC) of patients without hyperhidrosis was matched to the hyperhidrosis cohort on demographic characteristics. Depression and/or anxiety were identified by ≥ 1 relevant diagnosis code or pharmacy claim. A multivariable logistic regression model estimated odds of treatment in the hyperhidrosis cohort, and depression/anxiety in the hyperhidrosis cohort and CC, adjusting for patient characteristics. Results A total of 44,484 patients with hyperhidrosis were identified, of whom 58.5% were female, with a mean (± standard deviation) age of 36.5 ± 16.5 years (83.5% ≥ 18 years). A small majority of patients (51.6%, 0.69/person-year) received treatment with prescription antiperspirants. Post-index oral systemic therapies, medical procedures, and surgical options were uncommon. At 12 months post-index, 48.4% of the sample had not filled a prescription for extra- or prescription-strength antiperspirants. Compared with the CC ( n = 137,451), a higher percentage of patients with hyperhidrosis had depression or anxiety reported during follow-up (41.1 vs. 28.2%, p < 0.001); this corresponded to higher adjusted odds of depression/anxiety in patients with hyperhidrosis [odds ratio (OR) 1.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.72–1.80, p < 0.001]. Baseline depression and/or anxiety were associated with lower odds of receiving hyperhidrosis treatment (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.73–0.80), as was increasing age and male gender. Patients with hyperhidrosis also had more frequent incident depression/anxiety during follow-up (18.2 vs. 10.6%, p < 0.001). Conclusion In this real-world analysis, hyperhidrosis was associated with increased odds of depression and/or anxiety. However, relatively low percentages of patients received prescription topical or oral treatments or underwent surgery, suggesting that tolerability, efficacy, and provider awareness may be limiting factors in the effective treatment of hyperhidrosis. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s13555-020-00439-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
To assess the cost-effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA), implantable sacral nerve stimulation devices, percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation, anticholinergic medications and mirabegron compared with best supportive care (BSC) for management of refractory overactive bladder (OAB). Methods: A Markov model was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of treatment options with BSC over a 10-year time horizon. Resource utilization, discontinuation rates and costs were derived from unpublished and published sources. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were reported. Results: Treatment with onabotA 100U produced the largest gain in QALYs (7.179) and lowest estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio ($32,680/QALY) of all assessed treatments compared with BSC. Conclusion: Compared with BSC, onabotA 100U was the most cost-effective treatment option for patients with refractory OAB.
View related articles View Crossmark data A systematic evidence-based review of treatments for primary hyperhidrosis A systematic review of hyperhidrosis treatments
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.