Evaluating prevalence and consequence of residual disease in individuals with psoriasis receiving apremilast treatment: results from a US patient survey.

Purpose: This noninterventional, cross-sectional survey estimated the prevalence and consequences of residual disease in apremilast-treated US adults with moderate to severe psoriasis. Materials and Methods: Residual disease was defined as experiencing moderate, severe, or very severe psoriasis over the past week or having ≥3% body surface area affected, despite treatment. Factors associated with residual disease and its effects on flare-ups, humanistic burden, and health care resource utilization (HCRU) were evaluated. Results: Of the 344 apremilast users (mean age, 44.9 years; female, 65.4%), 174 (50.6%) had residual disease. It was more prevalent in Black versus White participants (OR, 4.5; 95% CI, 1.6-12.2), those receiving apremilast for ≥1 versus <1 year (OR, 16.5; 95% CI, 7.9-34.4), those reporting ≥2 versus 0 to 1 flare-ups during the past 3 months (OR, 10.0; 95% CI, 5.0-20.1), and those with ≥4 versus 1 to 3 body regions affected at time of survey (OR, 8.6; 95% CI, 3.8-19.8). Participants with versus without residual disease self-reported more psoriasis flare-ups over the past 3 months (mean, 4.7 vs 0.9; p < .001) and more anxiety (89.7% vs 50.0%; p < .001) and depression (69.0% vs 23.6%; p < .001) over the past 30 days. Conclusion: Generally, participants with versus without residual disease also had significantly more comorbidities and greater HCRU.

Evaluating Treatment Choice in Patients with Moderate to Severe Psoriasis in the United States: Results from a US Patient Survey.

INTRODUCTION: While multiple treatments are available for moderate to severe psoriasis, patient preferences are rarely systematically studied. This study aims to identify factors associated with choice of a new once-daily oral psoriasis treatment, elicit patient views on treatment characteristics, and rank treatment characteristics by importance. METHODS: This noninterventional, cross-sectional survey study, conducted from December 2021 to June 2022, recruited US adults with moderate to severe psoriasis. Demographics, clinical characteristics, and perspectives on psoriasis treatment were collected. Factors associated with the choice of a new oral treatment were identified using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Treatment characteristics and reasons for treatment choice were ranked using bivariate comparisons. RESULTS: The study included 882 participants [mean (standard deviation; SD) age, 45.7 (12.8) years; female, 67.7%; White, 74.9%]; 92.7% were currently receiving treatment [mean (SD) duration, 2.9 (4.8) years]. Half of participants rated their psoriasis symptoms over the past week as mild, very mild, or nonexistent; 36.5% as moderate; and 12.7% as severe or very severe. Most (66.5%) indicated willingness to start a new oral treatment; 65.0% indicated that the new oral treatment would cause less anxiety than injections/infusions. Participants were significantly more likely to start the new oral treatment if they were currently receiving a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor [odds ratio (OR): 2.1, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.4-3.1] or ustekinumab (OR: 2.7, 95% CI: 1.6-5.0) versus apremilast (P < 0.001) or if they reported mild (OR: 3.2, 95% CI: 2.0-4.9), moderate (OR: 5.0, 95% CI: 3.1-8.2), or severe (OR: 7.6, 95% CI: 3.9-15.0) psoriasis symptoms compared with those who reported no symptoms in the past week (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Most participants indicated willingness to start a new once-daily oral treatment, viewing it as less anxiety provoking than injections/infusions. Current treatment and psoriasis severity affected participants' willingness to start a new oral treatment.

Patients with psoriasis have multiple treatment options available to them. We surveyed 882 adults with moderate to severe psoriasis in the US to assess their perspectives and the values placed on treatment characteristics that are most important to them when making treatment-related decisions. Participants were assigned to one of five groups based on their psoriasis treatment at the time of the survey: (1) apremilast (oral), (2) a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) treatment (injectable), (3) ustekinumab (injectable), (4) a topical therapy or phototherapy, or (5) over-the-counter medications or participants who were untreated (this group included those who were not currently using a psoriasis treatment). The extent of skin clearance associated with a drug, how a drug is taken, and a drug's safety profile were among the top-ranked treatment characteristics that are important to survey participants when they choose a psoriasis treatment. Most participants (66.5%) were willing to start a new oral treatment, with 65.0% indicating that the new oral treatment would cause less anxiety than injections or infusions. Participants were more willing to switch to a new oral psoriasis treatment if they were currently receiving an injectable treatment, such as ustekinumab or a TNFi, compared with those who were already taking an oral treatment. These findings suggest that, when prescribing treatments for psoriasis, health care providers should consider the treatment characteristics that are important to their patients and consider that patients generally prefer an oral versus injectable drug.

Assessing Response in Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review of the Psychometric Performance of Measures Used in HTAs and Clinical Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Assessing treatment response is key to determining treatment value in atopic dermatitis (AD). Currently, response is assessed using various clinician- or patient-reported measures and response criteria. This variation creates a mismatch of evidence across trials, hindering the ability of clinicians, regulators, and payers to compare the efficacy of treatments. This review identifies which measures and criteria are used to determine response in clinical trials and health technology assessments (HTAs). Moreover, it systematically reviews the psychometric performance of those measures and criteria to understand which perform best in capturing patient-relevant symptoms and treatment benefits. METHODS: A scoping review of clinical trials and HTAs in AD identified the following measures for inclusion: the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), the Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA), the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS). A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE and Embase to identify studies testing the psychometric performance of these measures in adults or adolescents with AD. RESULTS: A lack of consistency in the assessment of response was observed across clinical trials and HTAs. Important gaps in psychometric evidence were identified. No content validations of the EASI and IGA in AD were found, while some quantitative studies suggested that these measures fail to capture itch, a core symptom. The PP-NRS and DLQI performed well. No studies compared the performance of different response criteria. CONCLUSION: Content validation of the PP-NRS confirmed the importance of itch as a core symptom and treatment priority in AD; however, itch is not well covered in the EASI or IGA. Including the PP-NRS in clinical trials and HTAs will better capture patient-relevant benefit and response. Although various response criteria were used, no studies compared the performance of different criteria to inform which were most appropriate to compare treatments in clinical trials and HTAs.

The assessment of treatment response is important in determining treatment value in atopic dermatitis (AD). This study aimed to identify which outcome measures and criteria are used to determine treatment response in clinical trials and health technology assessments (HTAs). The psychometric performance of identified outcome measures and criteria was then systematically reviewed to understand which perform best in capturing patient-relevant symptoms and treatment benefits in AD. The review identified and included the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS) as response measures. Lack of consistency in how response is assessed across clinical trials and HTAs makes it difficult for clinicians and payers to compare the efficacies and cost-effectivenesses of different treatments and to make optimal treatment decisions. The review found that content validity (the extent to which a measure covers those symptoms and treatment benefits which are important to patients) was not assessed for EASI and IGA. EASI and IGA are often used to assess response in clinical trials and HTAs, but they miss key elements of the patient-relevant disease impact and treatment benefit, including itch. Treatments leading to improvements in missed symptoms (e.g. itch) will be undervalued using EASI and IGA, decreasing the chances of regulatory approval and reimbursement. Moreover, response criteria used in clinical trials and HTAs are sometimes adopted in prescriber settings. Here, if response assessment does not capture patient-relevant benefit, patients' access to tailored treatment may be restricted due to the perceived non-response.

Understanding what matters to metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients when considering treatment options: A US patient preference survey.

BACKGROUND: Understanding how patients perceive the efficacy, safety, and administrative burden of treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) can facilitate shared-decision making for optimal management. This study sought to elicit patient preferences for mCRPC treatments in the US. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey using the discrete-choice experiment method. Participants were asked to state their choices over successive sets of treatment alternatives, defined by varying levels of treatment attributes: overall survival (OS), months until patients develop a fracture or bone metastasis, likelihood of requiring radiation to control bone pain, fatigue, nausea, and administration (i.e., oral/IV injection/IV infusion). Using mixed logit models, we determined the value (i.e., preference weights) that respondents placed on each attribute. Relative attribute importance (RAI) and marginal rates of substitution (MRS) were calculated to understand patients' willingness to make tradeoffs among different attributes. RESULTS: The final data set numbered 160 participants, with a mean age of 71.6 years old and a mean of 8.96 years since prostate cancer diagnosis. Participants' treatment preferences were as follows: OS (RAI: 31%), bone pain control (23%), nausea (16%), delaying fracture or bone metastasis (15%), fatigue (11%), and administration (3%). The MRS demonstrated that respondents were willing to trade 1.9 months of OS to eliminate moderate nausea and 3.3 months of OS for a reduction in fatigue from severe to mild. CONCLUSIONS: Improving OS is the highest priority for patients with mCRPC, but they are willing to trade some survival to reduce the risk of requiring radiation to control bone pain, delay a fracture or bone metastasis, and experience less severe nausea and fatigue.

Patient Preferences for Benefits, Risks, and Administration Route of Hypomethylating Agents in Myelodysplastic Syndromes.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: Therapy with infused or injected hypomethylating agents (HMAs) may lead to higher treatment administration burden (ie, local reaction, visit frequency and duration) vs. oral HMAs.   OBJECTIVES: To reveal preferences of US and Canadian patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) for HMAs' benefits, risks, and administration burden through an online discrete-choice experiment (DCE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Choice of DCE attributes and survey development were informed by literature review and interviews with clinicians, MDS patients, and caregivers serving as patient proxies, and patient advocacy groups (PAGs) representatives, including from AAMAC, AAMDS, and MDSF. DCE choice tasks were analyzed using random parameter logit models. Survey patients were recruited by the PAGs via their networks. To understand key preference drivers and how much patients were willing to trade between attributes, we calculated each attribute's relative attribute importance (RAI) and marginal rates of substitution. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-four respondents (including 158 patients; mean age, 67.2 years; male, 50.5%; White, 50.5%; US residents, 88%) completed the survey. MDS risk was low (34.8%), high (30.9%), or unknown (34.2%). RAI (in decreasing order) was as follows: risk of AML (40%), fatigue level (33%), number of visits (12%), mode of administration (6%), visit duration (5%), and administration frequency (4%). Assuming the same risk of AML transformation or level of fatigue, most respondents (76.6%) were predicted to switch to an oral pill if it were available to them. CONCLUSION: Given equivalent effectiveness across HMAs, patients' preferences for HMA administration method should be considered in treatment decision-making to minimize burden and facilitate adherence.

Injectable Hypomethylating Agents for Management of Myelodysplastic Syndromes: Patients' Perspectives on Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Until recently, patients with MDSs could receive HMAs via intravenous (IV) or subcutaneous (SC) administration. An oral HMA was recently approved as an alternative to IV/SC administration. This study assessed the impact of IV/SC HMA on MDS patients, and their experience of, challenges with, and views about oral MDS treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted an online cross-sectional survey among adult MDS patients (or caregivers as proxies) invited by 2 U.S. MDS patient advocacy groups. Patients were required to have received IV/SC HMA (ie, azacitidine or decitabine) within 6 months of the survey. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 141 participants (120 patients, 21 caregiver proxies). Median patient age was 63.0 years, 53.9% were women, and 19.8%, 62.4%, and 17.7% had lower-, higher-, or unknown risk scores, respectively. HMA treatments received included SC azacitidine (37%), IV azacitidine (36%), and IV decitabine (27%). Among 89 IV HMA recipients, 74.2% and 69.7% reported treatment-related interference with their social and daily activities, respectively, and 66.3% reported pain related to treatment administration. Following an injection, SC HMA recipients reported pain (94.2%) and interference with daily (86.5%) and social (80.8%) activities. Among the 49.6% of patients who were working, 61.4% felt less productive due to treatment. Most (69.5%) MDS patients indicated they would prefer oral MDS treatment to IV/SC therapies. CONCLUSION: Patients receiving IV/SC HMAs experienced pain/discomfort and interference with social and daily activities. The introduction of an oral HMA may alleviate some treatment challenges for MDS patients.

Salicylic acid (SA)-eluting bone regeneration scaffolds with interconnected porosity and local and sustained SA release.

In previous work, we observed that localized and sustained delivery of an anti-inflammatory drug, salicylic acid (SA), via a SA-based polymer (SAP) powder significantly enhanced diabetic bone regeneration through long-term mitigation of local inflammation. In this study, SAP was formulated into uniform microspheres and then sintered into a scaffold with an interconnected porous structure and modulus suitable for bone regeneration. The SAP scaffolds have ∼45% SA loading, which is the highest among drug-eluting bone regeneration scaffolds to-date. In addition, the scaffold provides localized, controlled and sustained SA release that has been proven to enhance diabetic bone regeneration. With the combination of physical (interconnected porosity) and chemical therapeutic features (high drug loading and sustained release), the novel SAP scaffolds offer unique therapeutic advantages and are promising diabetic bone regeneration candidates. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part A: 105A: 311-318, 2017.