Associations between symptom-based long COVID clusters and long-term quality of life, work and daily activities among individuals testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 at a national retail pharmacy.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on long COVID symptom clustering patterns among patients with COVID-19 is limited. We summarized long COVID symptoms in clusters defined by number of symptoms co-occurring together, and we assessed Health-Related Quality of Life (HQRoL), Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) outcomes across these clusters over time. We assessed associations between the clusters and BNT162b2 vaccination status. METHODS: A prospective longitudinal patient-reported outcomes (PRO) study recruited laboratory-confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 patients seeking testing from a national retail pharmacy. Long COVID-19 symptoms were self-reported by participants at 4-week, 3-month and 6-month surveys. Patient classes identified via latent class analysis (LCA) with long COVID-19 symptoms were simplified into clusters based on number of symptoms. HRQoL and WPAI outcomes were collected using EQ-ED-5L and WPAI: GH questionnaires. Mixed models for repeated measures analyses were conducted to examine associations between exposure groups and outcomes. RESULTS: The study included 328 participants that were segmented into three groups of long COVID-19 symptoms based on LCA and then simplified by the number of symptoms (Cluster 1 low, <2; Cluster 2 moderate, 2-6; and Cluster 3 high, >6 symptoms). The number of long COVID-19 symptoms was negatively associated with HRQoL and WPAI, whereby participants with high symptom burden (>6 symptoms) had the lowest HRQoL and WPAI scores assessed by absenteeism, presenteeism, work productivity loss, activity impairment, and hours worked metrics. Compared with those unvaccinated and not up-to-date with COVID-19 vaccination, subjects boosted with BNT162b2 consistently reported less symptom burden during the follow-up, regardless of their symptom-based cluster. CONCLUSION: Three distinct patient clusters based on frequency of long COVID symptoms experienced different HRQoL and WPAI outcomes over 6 months. The cluster with more concomitant symptoms experienced greater burden than the others. Participants up-to-date with BNT162b2 reported lower symptom burden across all clusters and timeframes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05160636.

Preferences of US adolescents and parents for vaccination against invasive meningococcal disease.

BACKGROUND: Percentage uptake of some meningococcal vaccines is low in the US. Understanding what drives vaccination preferences may help to increase vaccination rates. OBJECTIVES: To determine how attributes of meningococcal vaccines and the availability of a pentavalent (MenABCWY) vaccine profile drive adolescents' and young people's (AYP's) willingness to be vaccinated and parents' and legal guardians' (PLG') willingness for their child to be vaccinated (WTV). To also explore how preferences for meningococcal vaccines vary by participant characteristics. METHODS: Vaccine preferences were elicited in a discrete choice experiment (DCE) with AYP aged 16-23 years and PLG of adolescents aged 11-17 years. Participants chose between two hypothetical vaccine profiles that differed in level of protection, dosing, and risks of mild-to-moderate and severe side effects, and a no vaccination profile. Main outcome measures were relative attribute importance (RAI) and WTV. RAI measured the maximum contribution of an attribute to vaccination choice relative to other attributes. WTV compared predicted choice probabilities for the three vaccine profiles. RESULTS: 407 AYP and 394 PLG participated (50.9% male, 78.4% White/Caucasian). Irrespective of vaccine attributes, 59.5% always opted into vaccination and 3.6% always opted out of vaccination. The most important attributes were level of protection (RAI: 33.7%) and risk of mild-to-moderate side effects (RAI: 32.3%). Dosing was more important to PLG (RAI: 5.9%) than AYP (RAI: 2.0%; p < .01). Adding a pentavalent vaccine alternative increased WTV by 3.7 percentage points (PP) for PLG, 2.4 PP for AYP, 16.4 PP for vaccine-hesitant participants, 13.4 PP for participants without health insurance, and 9.6 PP for adults. CONCLUSION: Level of protection and risk of mild-to-moderate side effects were the most important vaccine attributes. Adding a pentavalent vaccine alternative increased WTV particularly among adults, individuals who were vaccine-hesitant, and individuals without health insurance.

A systematic review of health-related quality of life outcomes in patients with advanced breast cancer treated with palbociclib.

Aim: To evaluate the impact of palbociclib treatment on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor 2-negative advanced breast cancer (HR+/HER2- aBC) or metastatic breast cancer (mBC) in both the clinical and real-world setting. Materials & methods: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify clinical trials and real-world evidence studies up to June 2023 that reported HRQoL outcomes in patients with HR+/HER2- aBC or mBC treated with Palbociclib. Results: 15 unique studies reported across 35 records were identified. Of these, seven were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), three were single-arm clinical trials and five were real-world evidence (RWE) studies. HRQoL was generally found to be maintained in patients with HR+/HER2- aBC or mBC across RCTs, single-arm clinical trials and RWE studies. HRQoL measures across instruments, study types and line of therapy, were largely reported to be at least maintained if not improved from baseline among patients treated with palbociclib and were observed to be comparable or better in the palbociclib group versus monotherapy control arm in RCTs. Similar results were seen for treatment-related outcomes (e.g., sexual functioning, upset by hair loss, systemic therapy side effects etc.), and important individual patient outcomes, including pain, fatigue and physical functioning. Findings were also consistent across key clinical characteristics (visceral metastases, neutropenia), as well as patient populations often underrepresented in clinical trials (Asian patients, older adults). Conclusion: Overall, current evidence suggests that HRQoL is largely preserved with the addition of palbociclib to endocrine therapy in patients with HR+/HER2- aBC or mBC across study types and populations.

Preferences for a Clostridioides difficile vaccine among adults in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Clostridioides difficile (C.diff) infection (CDI) causes significant morbidity and mortality among older adults. Vaccines to prevent CDI are in development; however, data on the target population's preferences are needed to inform vaccination recommendations in the United States (US). This study assessed US adults' willingness to receive a C.diff vaccine and examined how vaccine attributes influence their choices. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey with a discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted among US adults aged ≥50 years. DCE attributes included effectiveness, duration of protection, reduction in symptom severity, out-of-pocket (OOP) costs, number of doses, and side effects. The DCE included 11 choice tasks, each with two hypothetical vaccine profiles and an opt-out (i.e., no vaccine). Attribute-level preference weights were estimated using hierarchical Bayesian modeling. Attribute relative importance (RI) was compared between select subgroups. RESULTS: Of 1216 adults in the analyses, 29.9% reported they knew either 'a little' (20.7%) or 'a lot' (9.2%) about C.diff before the study. A C.diff vaccine was chosen 58.0% of the time (vs. opt-out) across choice tasks. It was estimated that up to 75.0% would choose a vaccine when OOP was $0. Those who were immunocompromised/high-risk for CDI (vs. not) more frequently chose a C.diff vaccine. Decreases in OOP costs (RI = 56.1), improvements in vaccine effectiveness (RI = 17.7), and reduction in symptom severity (RI = 10.3) were most important to vaccine choice. The rank ordering of attributes by importance was consistent across subgroups. CONCLUSION: OOP cost, improvements in vaccine effectiveness, and reduction in CDI severity were highly influential to vaccine selection. Most adults aged ≥50 years were receptive to a C.diff vaccine, especially with little-to-no OOP cost, suggesting that mandating insurance coverage of vaccination with no copayment may increase uptake. The limited awareness about C.diff among adults presents an opportunity for healthcare providers to educate their patients about CDI prevention.

ZIBGLMM: Zero-Inflated Bivariate Generalized Linear Mixed Model for Meta-Analysis with Double-Zero-Event Studies.

Double-zero-event studies (DZS) pose a challenge for accurately estimating the overall treatment effect in meta-analysis. Current approaches, such as continuity correction or omission of DZS, are commonly employed, yet these ad hoc methods can yield biased conclusions. Although the standard bivariate generalized linear mixed model can accommodate DZS, it fails to address the potential systemic differences between DZS and other studies. In this paper, we propose a zero-inflated bivariate generalized linear mixed model (ZIBGLMM) to tackle this issue. This two-component finite mixture model includes zero-inflation for a subpopulation with negligible or extremely low risk. We develop both frequentist and Bayesian versions of ZIBGLMM and examine its performance in estimating risk ratios (RRs) against the bivariate generalized linear mixed model and conventional two-stage meta-analysis that excludes DZS. Through extensive simulation studies and real-world meta-analysis case studies, we demonstrate that ZIBGLMM outperforms the bivariate generalized linear mixed model and conventional two-stage meta-analysis that excludes DZS in estimating the true effect size with substantially less bias and comparable coverage probability.

Adherence, Persistence, Healthcare Resource Use, and Costs in Tofacitinib-Treated Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis: Data from Two United States Claims Databases.

INTRODUCTION: Associations between increased functional disability and higher healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs were reported in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). We assessed characteristics/outcomes of patients with PsA receiving tofacitinib monotherapy vs combination therapy with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. METHODS: Claims data from Optum® Clinformatics® Data Mart (OC) and Merative™ MarketScan® (MS) databases between December 2017 and February 2020 were analyzed. Outcomes assessed were adherence/persistence by therapy type (monotherapy/combination therapy); HCRU/costs (per patient per month) by periods on-treatment (sum time on tofacitinib) and off-treatment (sum time off tofacitinib [gap of > 60 days]) plus therapy type. RESULTS: This analysis included 274 and 395 tofacitinib-treated patients in OC (70.4% female, mean age 54.4 years) and MS (68.9% female, mean age 51.4 years), respectively. Percentages of patients with a proportion of days covered ≥ 0.8 at 12 months for monotherapy vs combination therapy were OC, 44.5% vs 53.8%; MS, 36.4% vs 45.7%. Generally similar trends were seen over 24 months and for medication possession ratio ≥ 0.8. Median (95% confidence interval) times to treatment discontinuation for monotherapy vs combination therapy were OC, 10.1 (7.4-11.8) vs 16.7 (8.3-26.6) months; MS, 6.9 (5.6-9.4) vs 11.0 (6.1-13.9) months. During off-treatment vs on-treatment periods, numerical decreases were observed for all-cause (OC, $5383 vs $6149; MS, $4145 vs $5180) and PsA-related costs (OC, $3237 vs $4515; MS, $2703 vs $3907) regardless of therapy type. During off-treatment vs on-treatment periods, numerical increases in outpatient visits for all-cause (OC, 2.37 vs 2.05; MS, 2.15 vs 1.99) and PsA-related visits (OC, 0.60 vs 0.46; MS, 0.47 vs 0.44) were observed, and PsA-related medications numerically decreased (OC, 1.21 vs 1.53; MS, 1.05 vs 1.48). CONCLUSION: In this USA-based claims analysis, tofacitinib adherence was numerically lower for patients with PsA receiving monotherapy vs combination therapy. Costs numerically decreased off-treatment vs on-treatment, irrespective of therapy type, driven by lower medication costs.

Validation of the Peak Pruritus-Numerical Rating Scale in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis: results from a phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Pruritus is a common, bothersome symptom for patients with mild-to-moderate plaque psoriasis (PsO), yet no validated scale assesses it in this patient population. We aimed to validate the Peak Pruritus-Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS) using data from a Phase 2b study investigating the efficacy of brepocitinib in patients with mild-to-moderate chronic PsO. METHODS: Patients completed the PP-NRS daily from baseline for the first 2 weeks after the dose administration and subsequently only on visit days. Test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]), construct validity (known group validity and convergent validity), ability to detect change, and meaningful within-patient change (MWPC) were evaluated using correlation and regression analyses. RESULTS: The PP-NRS demonstrated acceptable test-retest reliability (ICC: 0.86-0.89). Known-group evidence demonstrated that PP-NRS scores could discriminate between different degrees of disease severity. Convergent validity was supported by significant correlation coefficients between the PP-NRS and Patient Global Assessment (PtGA), Dermatology Life Quality Index, and Psoriasis Symptom Inventory, which generally exceeded 0.50. The ability to detect change was evidenced by an approximately linear relationship between changes in PP-NRS and Physician Global Assessment or PtGA of psoriasis scores. The value of 2.8 was determined as the MWPC for the PP-NRS. CONCLUSIONS: PP-NRS is a reliable, practical test for assessing pruritus in mild-to-moderate PsO clinical trials. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03850483.

Patient Preferences for Ulcerative Colitis Treatment in the Middle East Region: A Discrete-Choice Experiment.

Background and Aims: Treatments for ulcerative colitis (UC) differ in safety, efficacy, and route of administration; patient preferences for treatment attributes should be considered in treatment decisions. No study to date has explored patient preferences for moderate-to-severe UC treatment in Middle Eastern countries. Methods: A discrete-choice experiment aimed to quantify treatment preferences in patients with moderate-to-severe UC in 5 Middle Eastern countries (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, and Lebanon). Respondents chose between experimentally designed profiles for hypothetical UC treatments with varying efficacy (time until UC symptoms improve and chance of UC symptom control after 1 year), side effects (annual risk of serious infection, 5-year risk of malignancy), mode and frequency of administration, and need for occasional steroid use. A random-parameters logit model was used to estimate preference weights for these attributes, from which conditional relative importance estimates and maximum acceptable increases in risks of serious infection and malignancy were derived. Results: Among 365 adults with moderate-to-severe UC who completed the survey (mean age, 36 years; 50% female), 5-year risk of malignancy and symptom control after 1 year had the greatest conditional relative importance. Respondents were generally willing to accept statistically significant increases in annual risk of serious infection and 5-year risk of malignancy in exchange for better efficacy, changes in mode of administration and dosing schedule, and avoiding occasional steroid use. Conclusion: Of the attributes evaluated, individuals with UC in Middle Eastern countries most value avoiding 5-year risk of malignancy and a higher probability of symptom control, on average.

Gender Differences in Perceptions of Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Impact, Management, and Physician Interactions: Results from a Global Patient Survey.

INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the impact of gender on disease severity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), treatment management, and patient-healthcare professional (HCP) interactions from the perspectives of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: Data were collected from a global online patient survey conducted by The Harris Poll (November 2, 2017 to March 12, 2018). Eligible patients were aged ≥ 18 years, with a self-reported diagnosis of PsA for > 1 year, had visited a rheumatologist/dermatologist in the past 12 months, and had reported previously using ≥ 1 conventional synthetic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. Data were stratified by gender and analyzed descriptively, inferentially by binomial (chi-square) tests, and by multivariate logistic regression models. RESULTS: Data from 1286 patients who participated were included: 52% were female, 48% were male. Varying perceptions of disease severity between males and females were indicated by differences in symptoms leading to a diagnosis of PsA, and in symptoms reported despite treatment; more females than males reported joint tenderness, skin patches/plaques, and enthesitis. More females than males reported a major/moderate impact of PsA on their physical activity and emotional/mental well-being. Reasons for switching medication differed between genders, with more females switching because they perceived their medication to not be effective enough related to their joint symptoms. More females than males were very satisfied with their communication with their rheumatologist and were more likely to discuss the impact of PsA on their daily lives, their treatment satisfaction, and treatment goals with their rheumatologist. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' perceptions of the impact of PsA on HRQoL, treatment management, and interactions with HCPs varied between males and females. More females than males reported major/moderate physical and emotional impacts of PsA. When treating patients, it is important for HCPs to consider the potential impact of gender on patients' experience of PsA and its symptoms. Graphical plain language summary available for this article.

A latent class analysis of factors influencing preferences for infant respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) preventives among pregnant people in the United States.

A maternal vaccine and long-acting monoclonal antibody (mAb) were recently approved to protect infants against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). We identified subgroups of pregnant people with different preferences for RSV preventives and respondent characteristics associated with subgroup membership. An online survey, including a discrete choice experiment (DCE), was conducted among US pregnant people. RSV preventive attributes included effectiveness, duration of protection during RSV season, injection recipient/timing, preventive type (vaccine or mAb), and type of visit required to receive injection. In DCE choice tasks, pregnant people selected between two hypothetical preventive profiles with varying attribute-levels and a no-preventive option. Logistic regression, including latent class analysis (LCA), was used to analyze the data. Of 992 pregnant people (mean age: 30.0 years), 60.3% were expecting their second/later birth. LCA identified three preference subgroups: 'Effectiveness' (preventive choice mostly driven by increases in effectiveness; 51.4% class membership probability), 'Season' (preventive choice mostly driven by improvement in duration of protection during the RSV season; 39.2% class membership probability), and 'No Preventive' (frequently chose no-preventive option; 9.4% class membership probability). 'Effectiveness' and 'Season' preferred maternal vaccine over mAb; mAb was preferred by 'No Preventive.' Perceiving RSV as serious for infants, higher health literacy, and lower household income were associated with 'Effectiveness.' Perceiving RSV as serious for pregnant people was associated with 'Season.' Perceiving RSV to not be serious for pregnant people and not being employed were associated with 'No Preventive.' Subgroups of pregnant people vary in preferences for RSV preventives. Most pregnant people preferred a maternal vaccine, although some may be more willing to accept alternative preventive options.

Cross-Sectional Survey of Factors Contributing to COVID-19 Testing Hesitancy Among US Adults at Risk of Severe Outcomes from COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advises testing individuals for COVID-19 after exposure or if they display symptoms. However, a deeper understanding of demographic factors associated with testing hesitancy is necessary. METHODS: A US nationwide cross-sectional survey of adults with risk factors for developing severe COVID-19 ("high-risk" individuals) was conducted from August 18-September 5, 2023. Objectives included characterizing demographics and attitudes associated with COVID-19 testing. Inverse propensity weighting was used to weight the data to accurately reflect the high-risk adult US population as reflected in IQVIA medical claims data. We describe here the weighted results modeled to characterize demographic factors driving hesitancy. RESULTS: In the weighted sample of 5019 respondents at high risk for severe COVID-19, 58.2% were female, 37.8% were ≥ 65 years old, 77.1% were White, and 13.9% had a postgraduate degree. Overall, 67% were Non-testers (who indicated that they were unlikely or unsure of their likelihood of being tested within the next 6 months); these respondents were significantly more likely than Testers (who indicated a higher probability of testing within 6 months) to be female (60.2 vs. 54.1%; odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval (CI)], 1.3 [1.1‒1.4]), aged ≥ 65 years old (41.5 vs. 30.3%; OR [95% CI] compared with ages 18‒34 years, 0.6 [0.5‒0.7]), White (82.1 vs. 66.8%; OR [95% CI], 1.4 [1.1‒1.8]), and to identify as politically conservative (40.9 vs. 18.1%; OR [95% CI], 2.6 [2.3‒2.9]). In contrast, Testers were significantly more likely than Non-testers to have previous experience with COVID-19 testing, infection, or vaccination; greater knowledge regarding COVID-19 and testing; greater healthcare engagement; and concerns about COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Older, female, White, rural-dwelling, and politically conservative high-risk adults are the most likely individuals to experience COVID-19 testing hesitancy. Understanding these demographic factors will help guide strategies to improve US testing rates.

Time to improvement of pain, morning stiffness, fatigue, and disease activity in patients with ankylosing spondylitis treated with tofacitinib: a post hoc analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Time to improvement in core domains of AS was estimated in tofacitinib-treated patients with AS. METHODS: This post hoc analysis used phase 3 trial data from patients with AS receiving tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily or placebo to week (W)16; all patients received open-label tofacitinib W16-48. OUTCOMES: nocturnal pain; total back pain; fatigue, spinal pain, peripheral joint pain/swelling, enthesitis, and morning stiffness (Bath AS Disease Activity Index [BASDAI] questions 1-6); BASDAI total score; AS Disease Activity Score (ASDAS). Median time to improvement events was estimated using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier models. Improvement events were defined as initial (first post-baseline observation) and continued (sustained for 2 consecutive visits) ≥ 30% and ≥ 50% improvement in back/nocturnal pain or BASDAI questions/total scores, or ASDAS improvement ≥ 1.1 and ≥ 2.0 points. RESULTS: 269 patients (tofacitinib: n = 133; placebo-to-tofacitinib: n = 136) were assessed. Median time to improvement was shorter, and more patients experienced improvements with tofacitinib vs. placebo-to-tofacitinib; differences observed from W2 (first post-baseline assessment). Median time to initial (continued) ≥ 30% pain improvement was 4 (4-8) weeks for tofacitinib vs. 24 (24) weeks for placebo-to-tofacitinib (8 [8] weeks post-switch). Median time to initial (continued) ≥ 50% improvement of pain, peripheral joint pain/swelling and enthesitis, morning stiffness, BASDAI total score, and fatigue was 8-24 (12-40) weeks with tofacitinib vs. 24-32 weeks (32 weeks-not estimable [NE]) with placebo-to-tofacitinib. Median time to initial (continued) ASDAS improvement ≥ 1.1 points was 4 (8) weeks for tofacitinib vs. 24 (24) weeks for placebo-to-tofacitinib, and NE for improvement ≥ 2.0 points with either treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in AS core domains occurred more rapidly with tofacitinib vs. placebo-to-tofacitinib. Half of tofacitinib-treated patients with AS will likely experience improvements ≥ 30% in pain and ≥ 1.1 points in ASDAS during month (M)1, ≥ 50% improvement in nocturnal pain and enthesitis by M2, and in morning stiffness by M3. Results show that initiating tofacitinib as soon as possible is associated with quicker improvements in AS core domains vs. delaying treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03502616, 11 April 2018.

A review and comparison of arm-based versus contrast-based network meta-analysis for binary outcomes-Understanding their differences and limitations.

Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a statistical procedure to simultaneously compare multiple interventions. Despite the added complexity of performing an NMA compared with the traditional pairwise meta-analysis, under proper assumptions the NMA can lead to more efficient estimates on the comparisons of interventions by combining and contrasting the direct and indirect evidence into a form of evidence that can be used to underpin treatment guidelines. Two broad classes of NMA methods are commonly used in practice: the contrast-based (CB-NMA) and the arm-based (AB-NMA) models. While CB-NMA only focuses on the relative effects by assuming fixed intercepts, the AB-NMA offers greater flexibility on the estimands, including both the absolute and relative effects by assuming random intercepts. A major criticism of the AB-NMA, on which we aim to elaborate in this paper, is that it does not retain randomization within trials, which may introduce bias in the estimated relative effects in some scenarios. This criticism was drawn under the implicit assumption that a given relative effect is transportable, in which case the data generating mechanism favors the inference based on CB-NMA, which models the relative effect. In this article, we aim to review, summarize, and elaborate on the underlying assumptions, similarities and differences, and also the advantages and disadvantages, between CB-NMA and AB-NMA methods. As indirect treatment comparison is susceptible to risk of bias no matter which approach is taken, it is important to consider both approaches in practice as complementary sensitivity analyses and to provide the totality of evidence from the data.

Healthcare Providers' and Pregnant People's Preferences for a Preventive to Protect Infants from Serious Illness Due to Respiratory Syncytial Virus.

We assessed the impact of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) preventive characteristics on the intentions of pregnant people and healthcare providers (HCPs) to protect infants with a maternal vaccine or monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Pregnant people and HCPs who treated pregnant people and/or infants were recruited via convenience sample from a general research panel to complete a cross-sectional, web-based survey, including a discrete choice experiment (DCE) wherein respondents chose between hypothetical RSV preventive profiles varying on five attributes (effectiveness, preventive type [maternal vaccine vs. mAb], injection recipient/timing, type of medical visit required to receive the injection, and duration of protection during RSV season) and a no-preventive option. A best-worst scaling (BWS) exercise was included to explore the impact of additional attributes on preventive preferences. Data were collected between October and November 2022. Attribute-level preference weights and relative importance (RI) were estimated. Overall, 992 pregnant people and 310 HCPs participated. A preventive (vs. none) was chosen 89.2% (pregnant people) and 96.0% (HCPs) of the time (DCE). Effectiveness was most important to preventive choice for pregnant people (RI = 48.0%) and HCPs (RI = 41.7%); all else equal, pregnant people (RI = 5.5%) and HCPs (RI = 7.2%) preferred the maternal vaccine over mAbs, although preventive type had limited influence on choice. Longer protection, protection starting at birth or the beginning of RSV season, and use for both pre-term and full-term babies were ranked highest in importance (BWS). Pregnant people and HCPs strongly preferred a preventive to protect infants against RSV (vs. none), underscoring the need to incorporate RSV preventives into routine care.

Effect size varies based on calculation method and may affect interpretation of treatment effect: an illustration using randomised clinical trials in osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: To illustrate how (standardised) effect sizes (ES) vary based on calculation method and to provide considerations for improved reporting. METHODS: Data from three trials of tanezumab in subjects with osteoarthritis were analyzed. ES of tanezumab versus comparator for WOMAC Pain (outcome) was defined as least squares difference between means (mixed model for repeated measures analysis) divided by a pooled standard deviation (SD) of outcome scores. Three approaches to computing the SD were evaluated: Baseline (the pooled SD of WOMAC Pain values at baseline [pooled across treatments]); Endpoint (the pooled SD of these values at the time primary endpoints were assessed); and Median (the median pooled SD of these values based on the pooled SDs across available timepoints). Bootstrap analyses were used to compute 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: ES (95% CI) of tanezumab 2.5 mg based on Baseline, Endpoint, and Median SDs in one study were - 0.416 (- 0.796, - 0.060), - 0.195 (- 0.371, - 0.028), and - 0.196 (- 0.373, - 0.028), respectively; negative values indicate pain improvement. This pattern of ES differences (largest with Baseline SD, smallest with Endpoint SD, Median SD similar to Endpoint SD) was consistent across all studies and doses of tanezumab. CONCLUSION: Differences in ES affect interpretation of treatment effect. Therefore, we advocate clearly reporting individual elements of ES in addition to its overall calculation. This is particularly important when ES estimates are used to determine sample sizes for clinical trials, as larger ES will lead to smaller sample sizes and potentially underpowered studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02697773, NCT02709486, and NCT02528188.

Lung adenocarcinoma patients with ROS1-rearranged tumors by sex and smoking intensity.

Background: ROS1 rearrangements (ROS1+) define a distinct molecular subset of lung adenocarcinomas. ROS1 + tumors are known to occur more in never-smokers, but the frequency and outcome of ROS1 positivity by sex and smoking intensity are not clearly documented. Patients and methods: This patient cohort study included all never- (<100 cigarettes lifetime) and light- (100 cigarettes-20 pack-years) smokers, and a sample of heavy-smokers. ROS1 + rates by sex and smoking intensity were compared within and beyond our study. Survival outcomes were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Of the 571 total patients, ROS1 + was detected in 24 (4.2%): 6.4% in men and 3.0% in women; 5.1% in never-, 5.7% in light-, and 1.8% in heavy-smokers (P=0.05). Among the 209 stage IIIB-IV patients, men had much higher ROS1 + rate (11.1%) not only than women (1.7%, P=0.004) in our study, but also than men (0.4%-1.8%) in 8 published studies (Ps = 0.0019-0.0001). ROS1+ rates were similar between never- (9.3%) and light-smokers (8.1%) and significantly lower in heavy-smokers (1.2%, P=0.017), a finding confirmed by 6 published studies (Ps = 0.041-0.0001). Overall survival of ROS1 + patients were significantly better than the ROS1- (P=0.023) mainly due to targeted therapy. Among patients who exhibited resistance to crizotinib, follow-up treatment of entrectinib and lorlatinib showed remarkable survival benefits. Conclusions: The ROS1 + rates were higher in men than in women, and similar in never- and light-smokers, more pronounced in stage IIIB-IV patients. Newer-generation ALK/ROS1-targeted drugs showed efficacy in a cohort of crizotinib resistant ROS1 + patients. These results, when validated, could assist efficiently accruing ROS1 + patients.

A comprehensive review and shiny application on the matching-adjusted indirect comparison.

Population-adjusted indirect comparison (PAIC) is an increasingly used technique for estimating the comparative effectiveness of different treatments for the health technology assessments when head-to-head trials are unavailable. Three commonly used PAIC methods include matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), simulated treatment comparison (STC), and multilevel network meta-regression (ML-NMR). MAIC enables researchers to achieve balanced covariate distribution across two independent trials when individual participant data are only available in one trial. In this article, we provide a comprehensive review of the MAIC methods, including their theoretical derivation, implicit assumptions, and connection to calibration estimation in survey sampling. We discuss the nuances between anchored and unanchored MAIC, as well as their required assumptions. Furthermore, we implement various MAIC methods in a user-friendly R Shiny application Shiny-MAIC. To our knowledge, it is the first Shiny application that implements various MAIC methods. The Shiny-MAIC application offers choice between anchored or unanchored MAIC, choice among different types of covariates and outcomes, and two variance estimators including bootstrap and robust standard errors. An example with simulated data is provided to demonstrate the utility of the Shiny-MAIC application, enabling a user-friendly approach conducting MAIC for healthcare decision-making. The Shiny-MAIC is freely available through the link: https://ziren.shinyapps.io/Shiny_MAIC/.

A matching-adjusted indirect comparison of the efficacy of elranatamab versus teclistamab in patients with triple-class exposed/refractory multiple myeloma.

For patients with triple-class exposed/refractory multiple myeloma (TCE/RMM), where effective treatments options are limited, B-cell maturation antigen and CD3-directed bispecific antibodies offer a promising new approach. Teclistamab gained conditional approval in Europe and accelerated Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval based on the MajesTEC-1 trial (NCT03145181). Elranatamab, approved by the FDA demonstrated its safety and efficacy in the MagnetisMM-3 trial (NCT04649359). Given the absence of head-to-head trials, an unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was conducted to assess their relative efficacy. Key baseline characteristics were adjusted to be comparable between the two trials. In the MAIC, elranatamab demonstrated significantly better objective response rate and progression-free survival (PFS) than teclistamab, and numerically better complete response, duration of response, and overall survival (OS). These results suggest that elranatamab is an efficacious option for treating patients with TCE/R MM.

Effectiveness of BNT162b2 BA.4/5 Bivalent COVID-19 Vaccine against Long COVID Symptoms: A US Nationwide Study.

BACKGROUND: Long COVID has become a central public health concern. This study characterized the effectiveness of BNT162b2 BA.4/5 bivalent COVID-19 vaccine (bivalent) against long COVID symptoms. METHODS: Symptomatic US adult outpatients testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 were recruited between 2 March and 18 May 2023. Symptoms were assessed longitudinally using a CDC-based symptom questionnaire at Week 4, Month 3, and Month 6 following infection. The odds ratio (OR) of long COVID between vaccination groups was assessed by using mixed-effects logistic models, adjusting for multiple covariates. RESULTS: At Week 4, among 505 participants, 260 (51%) were vaccinated with bivalent and 245 (49%) were unvaccinated. Mean age was 46.3 years, 70.7% were female, 25.1% had ≥1 comorbidity, 43.0% prior infection, 23.0% reported Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir use. At Month 6, the bivalent cohort had 41% lower risk of long COVID with ≥3 symptoms (OR: 0.59, 95% CI, 0.36-0.96, p = 0.034) and 37% lower risk of ≥2 symptoms (OR: 0.63, 95% CI, 0.41-0.96, p = 0.030). The bivalent cohort reported fewer and less durable symptoms throughout the six-month follow-up, driven by neurologic and general symptoms, especially fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with unvaccinated participants, participants vaccinated with the bivalent were associated with approximately 40% lower risk of long COVID and less symptom burden over the six-month study duration.