Use of an alternative method to evaluate erythema severity in a clinical trial: difference in vehicle response with evaluation of baseline and postdose photographs for effect of oxymetazoline cream 1·0% for persistent erythema of rosacea in a phase IV study.
Erythema
/ diagnosis
Face
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Oxymetazoline
/ administration & dosage
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Patient Satisfaction
Photography
/ standards
Research Design
/ standards
Rosacea
/ diagnosis
Severity of Illness Index
Skin
/ diagnostic imaging
Skin Cream
/ administration & dosage
Treatment Outcome
Journal
The British journal of dermatology
ISSN: 1365-2133
Titre abrégé: Br J Dermatol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0004041
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2019
05 2019
Historique:
accepted:
23
11
2018
pubmed:
1
12
2018
medline:
4
7
2020
entrez:
1
12
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Once-daily topical oxymetazoline cream 1·0% significantly reduced persistent facial erythema of rosacea in trials requiring live, static patient assessments. To evaluate critically the methodology of clinical trials that require live, static patient assessments by determining whether assessment of erythema is different when reference to the baseline photograph is allowed. In two identically designed, randomized, phase III trials, adults with persistent facial erythema of rosacea applied oxymetazoline or vehicle once daily. This phase IV study evaluated standardized digital facial photographs from the phase III trials to record ≥ 1-grade Clinician Erythema Assessment (CEA) improvement at 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 h postdose. Among 835 patients (oxymetazoline n = 415, vehicle n = 420), significantly greater proportions of patients treated with oxymetazoline vs. vehicle achieved ≥ 1-grade CEA improvement. For the comparison between phase IV study results and the original phase III analysis, when reference to baseline photographs was allowed while evaluating post-treatment photographs, the results for oxymetazoline were similar to results of the phase III trials (up to 85.7%), but a significantly lower proportion of vehicle recipients achieved ≥ 1-grade CEA improvement (up to 29.7% [phase 4] vs. 52.3% [phase 3]; P<0.001). In the phase IV study, up to 80·2% of patients treated with oxymetazoline achieved at least moderate erythema improvement vs. up to 22·9% of patients treated with vehicle. The association between patients' satisfaction with facial skin redness and percentage of erythema improvement was statistically significant. Assessment of study photographs, with comparison to baseline, confirmed significant erythema reduction with oxymetazoline on the first day of application. Compared with the phase III trial results, significantly fewer vehicle recipients attained ≥ 1-grade CEA improvement, suggesting a mitigated vehicle effect. This methodology may improve the accuracy of clinical trials evaluating erythema severity.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Once-daily topical oxymetazoline cream 1·0% significantly reduced persistent facial erythema of rosacea in trials requiring live, static patient assessments.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate critically the methodology of clinical trials that require live, static patient assessments by determining whether assessment of erythema is different when reference to the baseline photograph is allowed.
METHODS
In two identically designed, randomized, phase III trials, adults with persistent facial erythema of rosacea applied oxymetazoline or vehicle once daily. This phase IV study evaluated standardized digital facial photographs from the phase III trials to record ≥ 1-grade Clinician Erythema Assessment (CEA) improvement at 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 h postdose.
RESULTS
Among 835 patients (oxymetazoline n = 415, vehicle n = 420), significantly greater proportions of patients treated with oxymetazoline vs. vehicle achieved ≥ 1-grade CEA improvement. For the comparison between phase IV study results and the original phase III analysis, when reference to baseline photographs was allowed while evaluating post-treatment photographs, the results for oxymetazoline were similar to results of the phase III trials (up to 85.7%), but a significantly lower proportion of vehicle recipients achieved ≥ 1-grade CEA improvement (up to 29.7% [phase 4] vs. 52.3% [phase 3]; P<0.001). In the phase IV study, up to 80·2% of patients treated with oxymetazoline achieved at least moderate erythema improvement vs. up to 22·9% of patients treated with vehicle. The association between patients' satisfaction with facial skin redness and percentage of erythema improvement was statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS
Assessment of study photographs, with comparison to baseline, confirmed significant erythema reduction with oxymetazoline on the first day of application. Compared with the phase III trial results, significantly fewer vehicle recipients attained ≥ 1-grade CEA improvement, suggesting a mitigated vehicle effect. This methodology may improve the accuracy of clinical trials evaluating erythema severity.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30500065
doi: 10.1111/bjd.17462
pmc: PMC6850476
doi:
Substances chimiques
Oxymetazoline
8VLN5B44ZY
Types de publication
Clinical Trial, Phase IV
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1050-1057Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2018 The Authors. British Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.
Références
J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2012 Jun;14(3):145-9
pubmed: 22471899
Int J Womens Dermatol. 2017 Jan 27;3(3):180-183
pubmed: 28831432
J Drugs Dermatol. 2018 Feb 1;17(2):150-158
pubmed: 29462222
Dermatol Surg. 2015 Jul;41(7):812-20
pubmed: 26066615
J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2016 Oct-Dec;30(4):1153-1155
pubmed: 28078868
J Drugs Dermatol. 2018 Jan 1;17(1):97-105
pubmed: 29320594
J Pers Soc Psychol. 2005 Aug;89(2):143-59
pubmed: 16162050
Cutis. 2010 Aug;86(2):60-2
pubmed: 20919596
J Drugs Dermatol. 2018 Mar 1;17(3):290-298
pubmed: 29537447
Am J Clin Dermatol. 2014 Apr;15(2):115-27
pubmed: 24474647
Exp Dermatol. 2017 Aug;26(8):659-667
pubmed: 27376863
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012 Sep;67(3):379-86
pubmed: 22325459
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010 Aug;63(2):252-8
pubmed: 20605255
J Dermatol. 2016 May;43(5):526-31
pubmed: 26507367
J Drugs Dermatol. 2018 Jun 1;17(6):621-626
pubmed: 29879249
Lasers Med Sci. 2017 Nov;32(8):1711-1718
pubmed: 28528395
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014 Nov;71(5):954-959.e1
pubmed: 24929883
J Drugs Dermatol. 2014 Jun;13(6):719-22
pubmed: 24918563
J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2012 Mar;5(3):26-36
pubmed: 22468177
Dermatol Surg. 1998 Dec;24(12):1299-302
pubmed: 9865192
Ann Dermatol Venereol. 1997;124(10):687-91
pubmed: 9740864
J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2015 Mar;29(3):474-81
pubmed: 25074756
J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2017 Jun;10(6):17-31
pubmed: 28979654
Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2012 Jun;50(6):434-7
pubmed: 22677304
Br J Dermatol. 2013 Sep;169(3):555-62
pubmed: 23600367
J Drugs Dermatol. 2013 Jun 1;12(6):650-6
pubmed: 23839181