Patient Insights Following Use of LEO 90100 Aerosol Foam and Daivobet® Gel in Subjects With Psoriasis Vulgaris

The SPA questionnaire was completed at Week 2 and consisted of 2 parts:

(i) the subject indicated if they preferred LEO 90100 foam or Daivobet® gel based on their experience using these products for 1 week each during the 2-weeks treatment period; (ii) the subject indicated how much each of the 22 items under the application, formulation, and container domains contributed to their overall decision of which product they preferred. This part of the SPA tool used a 4-point scale ranging from 'very important factor' to 'not at all important factor'.

The statistical significance of each of the following 7 baseline characteristics (gender, age, disease severity, distribution, plaque size, skin thickness, onset) was tested in a 2-factor logistic regression model with treatment sequence and each baseline characteristic as factors.

Results of multiple regression analyses are provided in the Clinical Study Report which can be found on the LEO Pharma website.

Each response category (item 1 to 25) was assigned a numeric score (-2=strongly disagree, -1=slightly disagree, 0=neither agree nor disagree, 1=slightly agree, 2=strongly agree). For item 26, the assigned score were from -2=very dissatisfied to 2=very satisfied.

Summary scores were calculated by summing numeric scores for items under each domain, i.e., application (items 1-9; score range -18 to +18), formulation (items 10-18; score range -18 to +18), container (items 19-22; score range -8 to +8), and satisfaction (items 23-25; score range -6 to +6). Positive scores indicate agreement with domains' items.

A total TPUQ summary score (item 1-25; score range -50 to +50) was also calculated. The summary scores were analysed in the same way as the individual questions. The higher score signifies higher preference in that domain.

The TPUQ tool was used to evaluate the subject's latest topical treatment at Baseline (used within 3 months prior to baseline). TPUQ assessments of trial treatments at Week 1 and Week 2.

Each response category (item 1 to 25) was assigned a numeric score from-2=strongly disagree to 2=strongly agree. For item 26 the assigned scores were from -2=very dissatisfied to 2=very satisfied.

Summary scores were calculated by summing numeric scores for items under each domain, i.e., application (items 1-9; score range -18 to +18), formulation (items 10-18; score range -18 to +18), container (items 19-22; score range -8 to +8), and satisfaction (items 23-25; score range -6 to +6).

For each subject and each item, the latest topical treatment score was compared with each study treatment by calculating the difference between the scores, i.e., by subtracting the latest topical treatment score from each study medication score. The higher score signifies higher preference in that domain.

Subjects in both arms (foam-gel; gel-foam) indicated whether they preferred latest topical treatment, LEO 90100 aerosol foam, Daivobet® gel, or did not have any preference.

The subjects compared the trial treatment used the previous week with the latest topical treatment (used within 3 months prior to baseline; CLTT analysis set). Each item was scored with either 'prefer latest treatment', 'no preference', or 'prefer trial medication (foam or gel)'. A subject could prefer both study treatments over the latest topical treatment. The percentage is given for the number of subjects preferring foam and number of subjects preferring gel.

The VPM questionnaire was analysed the same way as the TPUQ. Numeric scores were calculated by assigning the following values to each response category: -3 = Extremely unappealing, -2 = Moderately unappealing, -1 = Slightly unappealing, 0 = Neutral, 1 = Slightly appealing, 2 = Moderately appealing, 3 = Extremely appealing. A summary score was defined as the sum of all questions and could range from -21 to 21.

Comparison of contribution of each product attribute in the stated preference between trial treatments (foam and gel)