Falk G. Bechara

BACKGROUND: A validated tool for the dynamic severity assessment of hidradenitis suppurativa/acne inversa (HS) is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a novel dynamic scoring system to assess the severity of HS. METHODS: A Delphi voting procedure was conducted among the members of the European Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation (EHSF) to achieve consensus towards an initial HS Severity Score System (HS4). Strengths and weaknesses of HS4 were examined by a multicentre prospective study. Multivariate logistic regression, discriminant analysis and receiver operating characteristic curves, as well as examination for correlation (Spearman's rho) and agreement (Cohen's kappa) with existing scores, were engaged to recognize the variables for a new International HS4 (IHS4) that was established by a second Delphi round. RESULTS: Consensus HS4 was based on number of skin lesions, number of skin areas involved and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and was evaluated by a sample of 236 patients from 11 centres. Subsequently, a multivariate regression model calculated adjusted odds ratios for several clinical signs. Nodules, abscesses and draining tunnels resulted as the scoring variables. Three candidate scores were presented to the second Delphi round. The resulting IHS4 score is arrived at by the number of nodules (multiplied by 1) plus the number of abscesses (multiplied by 2) plus the number of draining tunnels (multiplied by 4). A total score of 3 or less signifies mild, 4-10 signifies moderate and 11 or higher signifies severe disease. Cohen's kappa was fair (κ = 0·32) compared with Hurley classification, and moderate (κ = 0·49) compared with Expert Opinion. Correlation was good (ρ > 0·6) with Hurley classification, Expert Opinion, Physician's Global Assessment and Modified Sartorius score, and moderate for DLQI (ρ = 0·36). CONCLUSIONS: The novel IHS4 is a validated tool to dynamically assess HS severity and can be used both in real-life and the clinical trials setting.

Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS)/acne inversa is a debilitating chronic disease that remains poorly understood and difficult to manage. Clinical practice is variable, and there is a need for international, evidence-based and easily applicable consensus on HS management. We report here the findings of a systematic literature review, which were subsequently used as a basis for the development of international consensus recommendations for the management of patients with HS. A systematic literature review was performed for each of nine clinical questions in HS (defined by an expert steering committee), covering comorbidity assessment, therapy (medical, surgical and combinations) and response to treatment. Included articles underwent data extraction and were graded according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine criteria. Evidence-based recommendations were then drafted, refined and voted upon, using a modified Delphi process. Overall, 5310 articles were screened, 171 articles were analysed, and 65 were used to derive recommendations. These articles included six randomized controlled trials plus cohort studies and case series. The highest level of evidence concerned dosing recommendations for topical clindamycin in mild disease (with systemic tetracyclines for more frequent/widespread lesions) and biologic therapy (especially adalimumab) as second-line agents (following conventional therapy failure). Good-quality evidence was available for the hidradenitis suppurativa clinical response (HiSCR) as a dichotomous outcome measure in inflammatory areas under treatment. Lower-level evidence supported recommendations for topical triclosan and oral zinc in mild-to-moderate HS, systemic clindamycin and rifampicin in moderate HS and intravenous ertapenem in selected patients with more severe disease. Intralesional or systemic steroids may also be considered. Local surgical excision is suggested for mild-to-moderate HS, with wide excision for more extensive disease. Despite a paucity of good-quality data on management decisions in HS, this systematic review has enabled the development of robust and easily applicable clinical recommendations for international physicians based on graded evidence.