Abstract
Steven Johnson Syndrome (SJS) and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN), grouped together under the terminology of epidermal necrolysis (EN), are a spectrum of life-threatening dermatologic conditions. A lack of standardization and validation for existing endpoints has been identified as a key barrier to the comparison of these therapies and development of evidenced-based treatment. Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic review of prospective studies involving systemic or topical treatments for EN, including dressing and ocular treatments. Outcomes were separated into mortality assessment, cutaneous outcomes, non-cutaneous clinical outcomes, and mucosal outcomes. The COSMIN Risk of Bias tool was used to assess the quality of studies on reliability and measurement error of outcome measurement instruments. Outcomes across studies assessing treatment in the acute phase of EN were varied. Most data came from prospective case reports and cohort studies representing the lack of available randomized clinical trial data available in EN. Our search did not reveal any EN-specific validated measures or scoring tools used to assess disease progression and outcomes. Less than half of included studies were considered “adequate” for COSMIN risk of bias in reliability and measurement error of outcome measurement instruments. With little consensus about management and treatment of EN, consistency and validation of measured outcomes is of the upmost importance for future studies to compare outcomes across treatments and identify the most effective means of combating the disease with the highest mortality managed by dermatologists.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Steven Johnson Syndrome (SJS) and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN) are grouped together under the terminology of epidermal necrolysis (EN), which is a life-threatening dermatologic condition characterized by a dusky morbilliform eruption with mucosal involvement, that rapidly progresses to vesicles, blisters, and skin sloughing.
There is a well-established need for evidence-based studies to define best supportive care practices and short-term treatment in EN [1]. Most existing studies examining these treatment methods are retrospective, but several randomized clinical trials have been completed. A lack of standardization and validation for existing endpoints has been identified as a key barrier when comparing therapies, hindering the development of evidenced-based treatment [1]. The purpose of this review is to systematically evaluate instruments used for outcome measures in prospective studies in the acute phase of EN.
Methods
This systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023405479). PubMed and EMBASE were utilized to identify prospective studies evaluating systemic and/or topical treatments for EN, including dressings and ocular treatments. We included studies which used one or more acute, EN-specific therapies, reported clear outcome measurements, were prospective in nature, and were available in English. Studies were excluded if they were not primary literature, presented outcome measurements for EN that could not be separated from other conditions, or assessed outcome measures related to EN secondary complications (e.g. xerophthalmia).
Data collected from these studies included study type, outcome measures, and primary or secondary endpoints if defined. The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool was used to assess the risk of bias in randomized control trials (RCTs) [2]. Each study was reviewed and scored according to the recommended protocol given by the authors of the tool.
Results
A total of 13 studies from 1997 to 2018 were included in the analysis (Fig. 1). Three RCTs, 5 case series, and 5 retrospective cohort studies were identified. Outcomes measures were divided into four categories: mortality assessment, cutaneous outcomes, mucosal outcomes, and non-cutaneous outcomes (Table 1).
Mortality assessment
Seven studies assessed patient mortality. The most commonly used metric to assess mortality was the standardized mortality ratio (n = 4), which is defined as the ratio of observed deaths compared to the expected deaths using the severity of illness score for TEN (SCORTEN) mortality predictor and is a frequently utilized endpoint in studies of epidermal necrolysis [1]. Other methods used in mortality assessment included comparison of treatment group mortality to an alternate treatment group (n = 1), placebo group (n = 3), or historical control group from a retrospective database (n = 1, Table 1).
Cutaneous outcomes
Assessment of cutaneous outcomes primarily focused on skin detachment and reepithelialization. Studies that quantified cutaneous involvement (n = 8) used classic burn tables or palm measurements to provide an estimated body surface area. All cutaneous outcomes were clinician reported outcome measurements (ClinROM) and there were no validated methods or instruments utilized.
Mucosal outcomes
Outcomes of oral and/or ocular mucosal disease were assessed in 2 of 13 studies (Table 2). Measured ocular outcomes included adverse events and complications, changes in tear break up time (TBUT), and visual acuity. All mucosal outcomes were ClinROMs and were unvalidated.
Non-cutaneous clinical outcomes
Three studies collectively assessed non-cutaneous adverse events and complications, including hospitalization duration. Adverse events, complications, and general state of health, following treatment were non-standardized descriptive reports by authors.
Scoring tools used included the Severity of Illness Score (n = 1) and Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS, n = 1). SAPS is a validated critical care scoring tool used to assess prognosis in critically ill patients and severity of disease in clinical trials. Scores were calculated and compared at different time points to quantify treatment effectiveness. In contrast, the Severity of Illness Score used by Aihara et al. was designed from a retrospective survey assessing ophthalmic lesions, lip/oral lesions, cutaneous lesions, and general condition [3]. Other objective outcomes included hospitalization time and fever duration. All overall clinical outcome measures were ClinROMs.
Risk of bias in randomized control trials
The Cochrane RoB 2 tool was created to provide an assessment of the risk of bias in RCTs, where bias is defined as systematic deviation from a theoretically ideal RCT. All three RCTs included in this study had some concerns for risk of bias overall (Table 2). All studies had low risk of bias in the randomization process and two had low risk of bias due to missing outcome data. In contrast, one study had high rates of patient death resulting in a high risk of bias due to missing outcome data. There were concerns noted in every other domain for all studies.
Discussion
Measured outcomes used to assess treatment effectiveness in the acute phase of EN varied across studies. Most data came from prospective case reports and cohort studies representing the lack of available randomized clinical trial data available in EN.
The search did not reveal any EN-specific validated measures or scoring tools used to assess disease progression and outcomes. Adverse events and complications were assessed in multiple studies; however, they were not a priori defined, and it was unclear if these events were the result of the EN disease process, therapeutics, or another cause.
The standardized mortality ratio was widely used across studies. As an outcome measurement, the standardized mortality ratio likely requires additional calibration as SCORTEN is thought to underestimate mortality for low scores and overestimate mortality for high scores [1]. Regardless, the standardized mortality ratio provides a consistent (albeit unvalidated) method of mortality assessment across studies.
Measures of EN-specific cutaneous outcomes across studies varied. Many studies assessed skin detachment or reepithelialization, however their specific endpoints were nuanced. Some studies took a “time-to-event” approach, which measures the time to desired outcome, such as completion or commencement of skin reepithelialization. This measurement does not include data from patients who died, and therefore must be considered in light of mortality measurements. Further, measurement of epithelial damage and healing has not been standardized as an outcome measure across clinicians.
In addition to the time-to-event approach, several studies compared cutaneous outcomes (skin detachment, reepithelialization) at predetermined timepoints. While EN is known to take weeks to resolve, there was no apparent strategic rationale for selecting these timepoints in relation to the SJS/TEN disease process. Further, there is no validated metric to quantitate morphology and distribution of cutaneous lesions at baseline for adequate comparison.
Interestingly, resolution of oral mucosal and ocular involvement were monitored in one study each [4, 5]. All outcomes measured were ClinROMs and there were no patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). There are currently no studies which assess the validity of ClinROMs or PROMs as outcome measurements for EN.
Across all RCTs included in this review, there was some concern for risk of bias. It is worth considering that the high mortality rate of patients in Wolkenstein et al. contributed to a high risk of bias from missing outcome data [5]. This highlights a unique challenge in minimizing bias for RCTs looking at treatments for EN, especially at tertiary centers which accept patients with increased disease severity.
Limitations of this study include the exclusion of non-prospective literature and studies in languages other than English.
With little consensus about management and treatment of EN, development of validated outcome measures, with representation of the oral and genital mucosa, is essential for future studies including RTCs. One way of accomplishing this is the establishment of a Core Outcome Set for EN, which identifies consensus-based outcomes to be measured and reported across all clinical trials.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. This manuscript has not been previously published or presented.
References
Dobry AS, Himed S, Waters M, Kaffenberger BH (2022) Scoring assessments in Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis. Front Med (Lausanne) 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.883121
Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ et al (2019) RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 366. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898
Aihara M, Kano Y, Fujita H et al (2015) Efficacy of additional i.v. immunoglobulin to steroid therapy in Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis. J Dermatol 42(8):768–777. https://doi.org/10.1111/1346-8138.12925
Wang CW, Yang LY, Chen CB, Ho HC, Hung SI, Yang CH, Chang CJ, Su SC, Hui RC, Chin SW, Huang LF, Lin YY, Chang WY, Fan WL, Yang CY, Ho JC, Chang YC, Lu CW, Chung WH (2018) The Taiwan severe cutaneous adverse reaction (TSCAR) Consortium. Randomized, controlled trial of TNF-α antagonist in CTL-mediated severe cutaneous adverse reactions. J Clin Invest 128(3):985–996. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI93349
Wolkenstein P, Latarjet J, Roujeau JC et al (1998) Randomised comparison of thalidomide versus placebo in toxic epidermal necrolysis. Lancet 352(9140):1586–1589. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(98)02197-7
Paquet P, Jacob E, Damas P, Pirson J, Piérard G (2005) Analytical quantification of the inflammatory cell infiltrate and CD95R expression during treatment of drug-induced toxic epidermal necrolysis. Arch Dermatol Res 297(6):266–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00403-005-0607-3
Paquet P, Kaveri S, Jacob E, Pirson J, Quatresooz P, Piérard GE (2006) Skin immunoglobulin deposition following intravenous immunoglobulin therapy in toxic epidermal necrolysis. Exp Dermatol 15(5):381–386. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0906-6705.2006.00426.x
Singh GK, Chatterjee M, Verma R (2013) Cyclosporine in Stevens Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis and retrospective comparison with systemic corticosteroid. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol 79(5):686–692. https://doi.org/10.4103/0378-6323.116738
Bachot N, Revuz J, Roujeau JC (2003) Intravenous immunoglobulin treatment for Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis: a prospective noncomparative study showing no benefit on mortality or progression. Arch Dermatol 139(1):33–36. https://doi.org/10.1001/ARCHDERM.139.1.33
Valeyrie-Allanore L, Wolkenstein P, Brochard L et al (2010) Open trial of ciclosporin treatment for Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis. Br J Dermatol 163(4):847–853. https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1365-2133.2010.09863.X
Kakourou T, Klontza D, Soteropoulou F, Kattamis C (1997) Corticosteroid treatment of Erythema Multiforme major (Stevens-Johnson syndrome) in children. Eur J Pediatr 156(2):90–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/S004310050561
Viard I, Wehrli P, Bullani R et al (1998) Inhibition of toxic epidermal necrolysis by blockade of CD95 with human intravenous immunoglobulin. 282
Sharma N, Thenarasun SA, Kaur M et al (2016) Adjuvant role of Amniotic Membrane Transplantation in Acute Ocular Stevens-Johnson syndrome: a Randomized Control Trial. Ophthalmology 123(3):484–491. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.OPHTHA.2015.10.027
Tripathi A, Ditto AM, Grammer LC et al (2000) Corticosteroid therapy in an additional 13 cases of Stevens-Johnson syndrome: a total series of 67 cases. Allergy Asthma Proc. ;21(2):101–105. https://doi.org/10.2500/108854100778250914
Cheriyan S, Patterson R, Greenberger PA, Grammer LC, Latall J (1995) The outcome of Stevens-Johnson syndrome treated with corticosteroids. Allergy Proc. ;16(4):151–155. https://doi.org/10.2500/108854195778666793
Acknowledgements
None.
Funding
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
B.K. oversaw and organized the research. K.L. and N.M. completed the research and wrote the manuscript and created figures. R.K. and A.K. contributed comments to the manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
IRB approval
Not required, as this is a secondary analysis of existing deidentified data.
Patient consent
Not applicable.
Competing interests
Dr. Benjamin Kaffenberger is an investigator for BMS, Biogen, Merck, InflaRx, OnQuality Pharmaceuticals, and the Dermatology Foundation and has consulted for Biogen, Onquality, Novocure, Novartis, and Elsevier.
Conflict of interest
Dr. Benjamin Kaffenberger is an investigator for BMS, Biogen, Merck, InflaRx, OnQuality Pharmaceuticals, and the Dermatology Foundation and has consulted for Biogen, Onquality, Novocure, Novartis, and Elsevier.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Benjamin H. Kaffenberger is the co-corresponding author.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Libson, K., Mehta, N., Kirven, R. et al. Outcome measurements in epidermal necrolysis: a systematic review. Arch Dermatol Res 316, 392 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00403-024-03062-5
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00403-024-03062-5