Department of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, Ruhr-University Bochum, Bochum, Germany.
JAMA Dermatol. 2018 Mar 1;154(3):330-335. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2017.5890.
The variation in both clinical appearance and responses to diverse treatment options emphasize the importance of an accurate, clinically relevant, yet easy-to-use scoring system in hidradenitis suppurativa.
To propose and provide validation data for the newly designed Severity Assessment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa score.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We prospectively assessed disease severity using Hurley staging and the modified Hidradenitis Suppurativa Score in 355 patients referred to Ruhr-University Bochum Department of Dermatology between March 2016 and June 2017. We also assessed disease severity via the Severity Assessment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa score.
Evaluation and assessment of convergent validity and responsiveness to treatment of the Severity Assessment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa score.
Eighty-eight of the 355 patients (134 [37.7%] men and 221 [62.3%] women with a median [IQR] age of 40 [30-49] years) were classified as Hurley stage I, 221 were Hurley stage II, and 46 were Hurley stage III, with an overall median modified Hidradenitis Suppurativa Score of 31 (interquartile range [IQR], 19.3-53). The median total Severity Assessment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa score was 6 (IQR, 4-9), significantly different among the 3 Hurley groups. The median SAHS score for patients in Hurley stage I was 5 (IQR, 3-6), 6 (IQR, 5-9) for patients in Hurley stage II, and 9 (IQR, 7-12) for patients in Hurley stage III (P < .001, Kruskal-Wallis test). Correlation analysis showed a significant correlation between the modified Hidradenitis Suppurativa Score and the Severity Assessment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa score (r = 0.79, P < .001). Disease severity assessment before and after 3 months of conservative systemic treatment showed a significant correlation between the Severity Assessment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa score and modified Hidradenitis Suppurativa Score. Both the mHSS (P = .001) and the SAHS score (P < .001) significantly differed between the baseline visit (median mHSS, 33 [IQR, 24-52]; median SAHS score, 6 [IQR, 5-9]) and the 3-month visit (median mHSS, 28 [IQR, 15-43.5]; median SAHS score, 5 [IQR, 4-6.3]). The 2 patient-reported items demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability with intraclass correlation coefficient values greater than 0.8.
Our validation data demonstrated that the Severity Assessment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa score is a disease severity instrument that significantly correlates with Hurley staging and the modified Hidradenitis Suppurativa Score, and is responsive enough to measure treatment outcome.
临床表现和对各种治疗方案反应的差异强调了在化脓性汗腺炎中使用准确、临床相关且易于使用的评分系统的重要性。
提出并提供新设计的化脓性汗腺炎严重程度评估评分的验证数据。
设计、地点和参与者:我们前瞻性地使用 Hurley 分期和改良化脓性汗腺炎评分评估了 2016 年 3 月至 2017 年 6 月期间向鲁尔大学波鸿分校皮肤科转诊的 355 例患者的疾病严重程度。我们还通过化脓性汗腺炎严重程度评估评分评估了疾病严重程度。
评估化脓性汗腺炎严重程度评估评分的收敛有效性和对治疗的反应性。
355 例患者中,88 例(134 例男性[37.7%]和 221 例女性[62.3%],中位[IQR]年龄为 40 [30-49]岁)为 Hurley 分期 I,221 例为 Hurley 分期 II,46 例为 Hurley 分期 III,总体改良化脓性汗腺炎评分中位数为 31(IQR,19.3-53)。化脓性汗腺炎严重程度评估评分的中位数为 6(IQR,4-9),在 3 个 Hurley 组之间差异显著。Hurley 分期 I 患者的 SAHS 评分中位数为 5(IQR,3-6),Hurley 分期 II 患者为 6(IQR,5-9),Hurley 分期 III 患者为 9(IQR,7-12)(P < .001,Kruskal-Wallis 检验)。相关性分析显示改良化脓性汗腺炎评分与化脓性汗腺炎严重程度评估评分之间存在显著相关性(r = 0.79,P < .001)。在 3 个月的保守系统治疗前后的疾病严重程度评估中,化脓性汗腺炎严重程度评估评分与改良化脓性汗腺炎评分之间存在显著相关性。化脓性汗腺炎严重程度评估评分(mHSS)(P = .001)和 SAHS 评分(P < .001)在基线访视(中位数 mHSS,33 [IQR,24-52];中位数 SAHS 评分,6 [IQR,5-9])和 3 个月访视(中位数 mHSS,28 [IQR,15-43.5];中位数 SAHS 评分,5 [IQR,4-6.3])之间存在显著差异。2 项患者报告的项目表现出良好的重测信度,组内相关系数值大于 0.8。
我们的验证数据表明,化脓性汗腺炎严重程度评估评分是一种疾病严重程度工具,与 Hurley 分期和改良化脓性汗腺炎评分显著相关,并且足以衡量治疗效果。