Pros and cons for selected tools to assess response to treatment
| Psoriasis Area and Severity Index(PASI) | National Psoriasis Foundation Psoriasis Score(NPF-PS) | Physician static global assessment(PSGA) | Overall lesion assessment(OLA) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BSA, body surface area; QoL, quality of life. | ||||
| Pros | Widely used | Correlates with QoL | Simple | Simple |
| Correlates to QoL, albeit poorly | Discriminates when BSA is low | Forces evaluator to step increments(not a continuous scale) | Forces step increments(not a continuous scale) | |
| Accepted by approving agencies | Has patient input | Uses thickness of lesions | ||
| Thickness is predominate component | ||||
| All elements are defined | ||||
| Cons | Not used by clinicians | Is not linear | Does not discriminate small changes | Does not discriminate small changes |
| FDA wants tool that reflects clinical use | Has not been widely tested | Range not robust | Range not robust, correlation to PASI unknown | |
| Does not discriminate when BSA is low | Not yet accepted by approving agencies nor clinicians | |||
| Upper end of scale not used | ||||