A study examining inter-rater and intrarater reliability of a novel instrument for assessment of psoriasis: the Copenhagen Psoriasis Severity Index

Background There is a perceived need for a better method for clinical assessment of the severity of psoriasis vulgaris. The most frequently used system is the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI), which has significant disadvantages, including the requirement for assessment of the percentage of skin affected, an inability to separate milder cases, and a lack of linearity. The Copenhagen Psoriasis Severity Index (CoPSI) is a novel approach which comprises assessment of three signs: erythema, plaque thickness and scaling, each on a four‐point scale (0, none; 1, mild; 2, moderate; 3, severe), at each of 10 sites: face, scalp, upper limbs (excluding hands and wrists), hands and wrists, chest and abdomen, back, buttocks and sacral area, genitalia, lower limbs (excluding feet and ankles), feet and ankles. Objectives To evaluate the inter‐rater and intrarater reliability of the CoPSI and to provide comparative data from the PASI and a Physician’s Global Assessment (PGA) used in recent clinical trials on psoriasis vulgaris. Methods On the day before the study, 14 dermatologists (raters) with an interest in psoriasis participated in a detailed training session and discussion (2·5 h) on use of the scales. On the study day, each rater evaluated 16 adults with chronic plaque psoriasis in the morning and again in the afternoon. Raters were randomly assigned to assess subjects using the scales in a specific sequence, either PGA, CoPSI, PASI or PGA, PASI, CoPSI. Each rater used one sequence in the morning and the other in the afternoon. The primary endpoint was the inter‐rater and intrarater reliability as determined by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Results All three scales demonstrated ‘substantial’ (a priori defined as ICC > 80%) intrarater reliability. The inter‐rater reliability for each of the CoPSI and PASI was also ‘substantial’ and for the PGA was ‘moderate’ (ICC 61%). The CoPSI was better at distinguishing between milder cases. Conclusions The CoPSI and the PASI both provided reproducible psoriasis severity assessments. In terms of both intrarater and inter‐rater reliability values, the CoPSI and the PASI are superior to the PGA. The CoPSI may overcome several of the problems associated with the PASI. In particular, the CoPSI avoids the need to estimate a percentage of skin involved, is able to separate milder cases where the PASI lacks sensitivity, and is also more linear and simpler. The CoPSI also incorporates more meaningful weighting of different anatomical areas.     

The Salford Psoriasis Index: an holistic measure of psoriasis severity

We have developed, tested and validated a new scoring system for psoriasis: the Salford Psoriasis Index (SPI). The SPI incorporates the current clinical extent of psoriasis based on the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI), a score indicating psychosocial disability, and past severity based on treatment history. The resultant three-figure SPI (signs, psychosocial disability, interventions) is a similar paradigm to the TNM (tumour, nodes, metastasis) classification used for cancer staging. The first figure transforms the PASI into a number from 0 to 10 reflecting extent of psoriasis. The second assesses the psychosocial impact of psoriasis on each patient using a 0-10 visual analogue scale. The third figure reflects historical severity of disease as judged by the need for systemic treatment, admission to hospital and number of episodes of erythroderma. The SPI was prospectively employed in assessing 150 consecutive patients with psoriasis. Furthermore, in a separate cohort of 100 patients we tested the Psychosocial Impact Score against a recognized self-report psoriasis-specific measure, the Psoriasis Disability Index. There was a strong correlation between the two (r = 0.59, P < 0.001). However, the Psychosocial Impact Score correlated poorly with clinical extent scores such as the PASI (r = 0.28, P < 0.05) and the Self-administered PASI in 72 patients tested (r = 0.19, P = 0.1). There was a high correlation between all six observers in 20 patients for both PASI (r = 0.71; 95% confidence interval, CI 0.51-0.86) and the Extent Score (r = 0.70; 95% CI 0. 56-0.89). We believe that the SPI will be more relevant to real-life categorization of psoriasis severity in that it takes an holistic approach based not only on physician assessment but also psychological disability and treatment resistance.     

A study examining inter- and intrarater reliability of three scales for measuring severity of psoriasis: Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, Physician's Global Assessment and Lattice System Physician's Global Assessment

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of consensus as to the best way of monitoring psoriasis severity in clinical trials. The Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) is the most frequently used system and the Physician's Global Assessment (PGA) is also often used. However, both instruments have some drawbacks and neither has been fully evaluated in terms of 'validity' and 'reliability' as a psoriasis rating scale. The Lattice System Physician's Global Assessment (LS-PGA) scale has recently been developed to address some disadvantages of the PASI and PGA. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the inter-rater and intrarater reliability of the PASI, PGA and LS-PGA. METHODS: On the day before the study, 14 dermatologists (raters), with varied experience of assessing psoriasis, received detailed training (2.5 h) on use of the scales. On the study day, each rater evaluated 16 adults with chronic plaque psoriasis in the morning and again in the afternoon. Raters were randomly assigned to assess subjects using the scales in a specific sequence, either PGA, LS-PGA, PASI or PGA, PASI, LS-PGA. Each rater used one sequence in the morning and the other in the afternoon. The primary endpoint was the inter-rater and intrarater reliability as determined by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). RESULTS: All three scales demonstrated 'substantial' (a priori defined as ICC > 80%) intrarater reliability. The inter-rater reliability for each of the PASI and LS-PGA was also 'substantial' and for the PGA was 'moderate' (ICC 75%). CONCLUSIONS: Each one of the three scales provided reproducible psoriasis severity assessments. In terms of both intrarater and inter-rater reliability values, the three scales can be ranked from highest to lowest as follows: PASI, LS-PGA and PGA.     

A cross‐sectional study using the Children’s Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI) in childhood psoriasis: negative effect on quality of life and moderate correlation of CDLQI with severity scores

Background Juvenile psoriasis is a chronic and incurable skin disease that affects approximately 0·7% of children. Objectives To achieve more insight into the quality of life (QoL) in childhood psoriasis and to investigate whether disease severity scores correlate with QoL scores. Methods All consecutive patients with juvenile plaque psoriasis (≤ 18 years old) who visited our outpatient department were included. At baseline, the Children’s Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI) questionnaire was completed and disease severity was assessed by the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) and the Physician Global Assessment (PGA). Results Thirty‐nine patients were included in the study. A median CDLQI of 6 [interquartile range (IQR) 5–9] was reported. Median PASI was 6·3 (IQR 3·3–8·2) and median PGA was 2 (IQR 1–3). The correlation coefficient between PASI and CDLQI was 0·47 (P = 0·003), whereas the correlation coefficient between PGA and CDLQI was 0·51 (P = 0·001). Conclusions The negative effect on QoL in juvenile psoriasis was confirmed in the largest cohort presented up to now. The correlation between disease severity scores and disease‐related QoL in children with psoriasis is only moderate. Therefore, both clinical outcome parameters (PASI, PGA) and measures of QoL (CDLQI) should be included in adequate, patient‐oriented clinical decision making.     

Apremilast,an oral phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor,in the treatment of Japanese patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis: Efficacy,safety and tolerability results from a phase 2b randomized controlled trial

Apremilast, an oral, small‐molecule phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, works intracellularly within immune cells to regulate inflammatory mediators. This phase 2b randomized, placebo‐controlled study evaluated efficacy and safety of apremilast among Japanese patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. In total, 254 patients were randomized to placebo, apremilast 20 mg b.i.d. (apremilast 20) or apremilast 30 mg b.i.d. (apremilast 30) through week 16; thereafter, all placebo patients were re‐randomized to apremilast 20 or 30 through week 68. Efficacy assessments included achievement of 75% or more reduction from baseline in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score (PASI‐75; primary) and achievement of static Physician Global Assessment (sPGA; secondary) score of 0 (clear) or 1 (minimal) at week 16. Safety was assessed through week 68. At week 16, PASI‐75 response rates were 7.1% (placebo), 23.5% (apremilast 20; P = 0.0032 vs placebo) and 28.2% (apremilast 30; P = 0.0003 vs placebo); sPGA response rates (score of 0 or 1) were 8.8% (placebo), 23.9% (apremilast 20; P = 0.0165 vs placebo) and 29.6% (apremilast 30; P = 0.0020 vs placebo). Responses were maintained with apremilast through week 68. Most common adverse events (AEs) with placebo, apremilast 20 and apremilast 30 (0–16 weeks) were nasopharyngitis (8.3%, 11.8%, 11.8%), diarrhea (1.2%, 8.2%, 9.4%), and abdominal discomfort (1.2%, 1.2%, 7.1%), respectively. Exposure‐adjusted incidence of these AEs did not increase with continued apremilast treatment (up to 68 weeks). Apremilast demonstrated efficacy and safety in Japanese patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis through 68 weeks that was generally consistent with prior studies.