A Study of Tirbanibulin on the Wellbeing of Participants With Actinic Keratoses

TSQM-9 was a 9-item clinically validated psychometric instrument developed from the TSQM 1.4. TSQM-9 measures participant satisfaction with the medication in 3 domains: Effectiveness, convenience, and global satisfaction. The scores were computed by adding items for each domain, i.e., 1 to 3 for effectiveness, 4 to 6 for convenience, and 7 to 9 for global satisfaction. The lowest possible score (1 for each item and 3 for all 3 subscales) was subtracted from the composite score and divided by the greatest possible score range. The greatest range was (7-1) x 3 items = 18 for effectiveness and convenience, and (5-1) x 3 items = 12 for global satisfaction. This provided a transformed score between 0 and 1 that was then multiplied by 100. TSQM-9 domain scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating greater satisfaction for that domain. A positive change from baseline indicates improvement.

Skindex-16 was used for participants to rate skin conditions that have occurred within the previous week. The Skindex-16 consisted of 16 items that were divided into three sub-scores: Symptoms (four items, range 0-24), Emotions (seven items, range 0-42), and Functioning (five items, range 0-30). Participant were asked to respond on how much their skin condition bothered them in the week prior to administration of the Skindex-16. Each item was scored on a scale ranged from 0 (never bothered) to 6 (always bothered), where higher score indicated continued/more botheration. Item scores are transformed to 0 to 100 scale, and domain scores are calculated as the average of the item scores comprising the domain. Net positive changes in respective subscale scoring indicates improvement in that particular quality of life assessment (i.e., Symptoms, Emotions, Functioning), while net negative changes in scoring indicates decrease in that particular quality of life assessment.

Likert scale was an instrument used to measure the individual's degree of agreement and disagreement with a variety of statements about some attitude, options, or their feelings. In this study, the product's organoleptic properties are evaluated with Likert scale. The questionnaire was built with questions related to the product's characteristics namely appearance, color, convenience, texture, smell, and the feelings experienced during drug application. The Likert scale offers 7 possible answers, from "totally agree",' In agreement", "Somewhat agree", "Neither agree nor disagree", "Something in disagreement", "In disagreement" and "totally in disagreement".

TSQM 1.4 was a 14-item robust instrument that psychometrically evaluates the treatment satisfaction of the administered medication. The instrument is designed with 4 scales consisting of 14 questions. These 14 questions were derived from an original set of 55 questions extracted from exhaustive literature review and treatment groups through multistep iterative process. The 4 scales focused on effectiveness (questions: 1-3), side effects (questions: 4-8), convenience (questions: 9-11), global satisfaction (questions:12-14). Global Satisfaction- Question 12 scored as 1 (not at all confident) to 5 (extremely confident); question 13 scored as 1 (not at all certain) to 5 (extremely certain); and question 14 scored as 1 (extremely dissatisfied) to 7 (extremely satisfied). The scores of the domain were added together and an algorithm was used to create a score of 0 to 100. Higher scores indicated greater satisfaction.

An expert panel on consensus developed a questionnaire directed to patients consisting of 9 simple items using a qualitative modified delphi method. Expert panel agreed to ask 9 specific items; 1: Overall appearance of the skin (much worse to much improved); 2: Treatment satisfaction of skin looks (extremely dissatisfied to extremely satisfied); 3: Treatment satisfaction of skin texture (extremely dissatisfied to extremely satisfied); 4: Duration of skin reactions (much shorter to much longer); 5: rate the severity of skin reactions (much better to much worse); 6: impact on your daily activities due to skin reactions (much better to much worse); 7: rate the convenience/ease of use (much better to much worse); 8: rate your overall satisfaction (much better to much worse); 9: You need to be retreated for AK, how likely are you to consider tirbanibulin (very unlikely to very likely).

An expert panel on consensus developed a questionnaire directed to physicians consisting of 10 simple items using a qualitative modified delphi method. Expert panel agreed to ask 10 specific items-1: Overall appearance of the skin (much worse to much improved); 2: Treatment satisfaction of skin looks (extremely dissatisfied to extremely satisfied); 3: Treatment satisfaction of skin texture (extremely dissatisfied to extremely satisfied); 4: Duration of skin reactions (much shorter to much longer); 5: rate the severity of skin reactions (much better to much worse); 6: impact on patient's daily activities due to skin reactions (much better to much worse); 7: rate the convenience/ease of use (much better to much worse); 8: rate your overall satisfaction (much better to much worse); 9: patient needs to be retreated for AK, how likely to consider tirbanibulin (very unlikely to very likely);10: severity of skin photodamage in the original AK treated area (absent to severe).

Complete clearance of all AK lesions within the application area, is defined as a reduction from baseline in the number of lesions = 100% at Day 57. Percentage of participants with complete clearance with a reduction of 100% (i.e., clearance percentage = 100% from Baseline) in the number of lesions within the application area were reported.

Participants with partial clearance were patients with a reduction of >=75% (i.e., clearance percentage <=-75% from Baseline) to <100% in the number of lesions within the application area at final visit.

Percent change from baseline in number of old and new AK lesions at Day 57 was reported. Number of lesions at Day 57 was calculated considering both old and new lesions, as: N lesions at Baseline - N lesions at Day 57/ N lesions at Baseline * 100%.

The lesions in the identified treatment area will be classified based on Olsen characterization. Classification of AK lesions according to Olsen grade of baseline lesions: Olsen Grade I: Early AK appear as single or few, differently sized, rough, blurred, less visible than palpable, red, rough spots or very flat, non-edged plaques which reach into the reddish color; Olsen grade II: describes advanced AK as clearly visible and palpable, flat, and irregularly raised, with sharp or blurred boundaries, red, rough keratinized surface. If the surface is more strongly keratinized, the AK can also be white, yellow, or light brown. After scratching effects, a black or blue-black shade may appear; Olsen grade III: denotes "late" AK that have existed for a longer period of time and are firmly anchored on the lower surface, with an irregular, humpy surface, also wart-like and of different colors (white, brown, black).

LC-OCT was a novel non-invasive imaging technique that enables in vivo visualization of the skin. It has been used for diagnosing and monitoring the treatment of skin disorders, including actinic keratosis. The use of LC-OCT in AK treatment progression allows for lesion classification based on histological features without the need for a biopsy. The histopathology of the skin was evaluated based on the estimated atypia score at cellular level of the LC-OCT images of clinical and subclinical lesions. Percentage of participants who performed LC-OCT for clinical and subclinical lesions assessment at each timepoint were reported.

An adverse event (AE) is as any untoward medical occurrence associated with the use of an intervention in humans after providing written informed consent for participation in the study until the end of study visit, whether considered intervention-related or not. A TEAE is defined as an AE with an onset that occurs after receiving study drug. Severity of TEAEs is graded as follows: Grade 1 Mild; asymptomatic or mild symptoms; clinical or diagnostic observations only; intervention not indicated. Grade 2 Moderate; minimal, local or noninvasive intervention indicated; limiting age-appropriate activities of daily living. Grade 3 Severe or medically significant but not immediately life-threatening; hospitalization or prolongation of hospitalization indicated; disabling; limiting self-care activities of daily living. Grade 4 Life-threatening consequences; urgent intervention indicated.