Validation of a scoring algorithm for the clinician-reported outcome tool 'prurigo activity and severity (PAS)' based on clinical studies of dupilumab in adults with prurigo Nodularis.

BACKGROUND: Prurigo nodularis (PN) also known as chronic prurigo, is a chronic inflammatory skin disease characterized by intensely itchy nodules/lesions which occur due to intensive scratching. PN management is, in part, based on clinician evaluations of PN lesions, which can be supported by clinician-reported outcomes (ClinRO) such as the Prurigo Activity and Severity (PAS) instrument. A 5-item version of PAS was included in recent phase-3 dupilumab PN trials (PRIME [NCT04183335]/PRIME2 [NCT04202679]). The PAS score was derived using the unweighted sum of 3-items of the 5-item PAS (range, 0-11; higher score indicates worse activity and severity): Item 2 (number of lesions), Item 5a (percentage of lesions with excoriations/crusts) and Item 5b (percentage of healed lesions) for use in clinical practice and for communication of treatment benefit to physicians. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the measurement properties of PAS score and derive within-patient (responder definition) and between-group improvement thresholds for interpreting changes in PAS score in patients with PN. METHODS: The data source was the pooled treatment group, intention-to-treat (ITT) data from the phase-3 PRIME (NCT04183335) and PRIME2 (NCT04202679) studies evaluating the efficacy of dupilumab in adult patients with PN with ≥20 nodules and severe itch uncontrolled with topical therapies. PAS score reliability, validity and sensitivity to change were evaluated, and anchor- and distribution-based methods were applied to derive meaningful change thresholds. RESULTS: The pooled ITT population included 311 patients (mean age 49.5 years, 65.3% female). Adequate to good psychometric properties were demonstrated for PAS score. The within-patient meaningful improvement threshold was estimated as 3.0 points (absolute change) and 37% (per cent change). A 1.7-point (absolute change) and 20% (per cent change) improvement were estimated to reflect a between-group meaningful change in PAS score. CONCLUSIONS: PAS score is a simple, clinically relevant indicator of PN lesion activity and severity supported by suitable psychometric performance.

Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale for Prurigo Nodularis: A Secondary Analysis of 2 Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Prurigo nodularis (PN) is a debilitating skin disease characterized by the hallmark symptom of chronic itch; the intensity of itch in PN was assessed using the Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale (WI-NRS) to evaluate the primary efficacy end point of 2 recent phase 3 studies of dupilumab treatment for PN. Objective: To validate the psychometric properties and to determine the clinically meaningful improvement threshold for WI-NRS in patients with moderate to severe PN. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this secondary analysis of the PRIME and PRIME2 trials, content validity of WI-NRS was assessed through in-depth patient interviews. Psychometric assessments used pooled data from masked, intention-to-treat (ITT) patients with PN from randomized, double-masked, and placebo-controlled studies. Psychometric assessments included test-retest reliability, construct validity, known-groups validity, and sensitivity to change in adult patients with moderate-to-severe PN. Thresholds for meaningful within-patient improvement in the WI-NRS score were determined using anchor and distribution-based approaches. Data were analyzed after completion of each study, December 2019 to November 2021 for PRIME and January 2020 to August 2021 for PRIME2. Exposures: Dupilumab (300 mg) or placebo subcutaneously every 2 weeks for 24 weeks. Main outcomes and measures: WI-NRS score at specified time points up to 24 weeks after randomization. Results: A total of 20 patients were included across the 2 studies (mean [SD] age, 49.3 [17.2] years; 11 female [55%]); 311 patients were included in the pooled intention-to-treat analysis (mean [SD] age, 49.5 [16.1] years; 203 female [65.3%]). The WI-NRS questions (20 of 20 patients), recall period (19 of 20 patients), and response scale (20 of 20 patients) were easy to understand and relevant for patients with PN. Adequate test-retest reliability was observed between screening and baseline (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.72, using Patient Global Impression of Severity [PGIS] to define stable patients). Convergent and discriminant validity was supported by moderate to strong correlations (absolute r range = 0.34-0.73) with other conceptually related measures and weaker correlations (absolute r range = 0.06-0.32) with less-related measures, respectively. WI-NRS was sensitive to change, as demonstrated by differences in change from baseline among groups (per PGIS change and PGI of Change [PGIC]). Using anchor-based approach with PGIS and PGIC, the clinically meaningful improvement threshold was 4 points (range, 3.0-4.5), which was also supported by distribution-based methods. Conclusion and Relevance: This study found that WI-NRS may be a fit-for-purpose instrument to support efficacy end points measuring the intensity of itching in adults with PN. Trial Registration: NCT04183335 (PRIME) and NCT04202679 (PRIME2).

Comparing Patient Preferences for Antithrombotic Treatment During the Acute and Chronic Phases of Myocardial Infarction: A Discrete-Choice Experiment.

BACKGROUND: Antithrombotic drugs are used as preventive treatment in patients with a prior myocardial infarction (MI) in both the acute and chronic phases of the disease. To support patient-centered benefit-risk assessment, it is important to understand the influence of disease stage on patient preferences. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine patient preferences for antithrombotic treatments and whether they differ by MI disease phase. METHODS: A discrete-choice experiment was used to elicit preferences of adults in the acute (≤ 365 days before enrolment) or chronic phase (> 365 days before enrolment) of MI for key ischemic events (risk of cardiovascular [CV] death, non-fatal MI, and non-fatal ischemic stroke) and bleeding events (risk of non-fatal intracranial hemorrhage and non-fatal other severe bleeding). Preference data were analyzed using the multinomial logit model. Trade-offs between attributes were calculated as the maximum acceptable increase in the risk of CV death for a decrease in the risk of the other outcomes. To assess the potential effect of sociodemographic and clinical characteristics on patient preferences, subgroups were introduced as interaction terms in logit models. RESULTS: The evaluable population included 155 patients with MI in the acute phase of disease and 180 in the chronic phase. The overall population was 82% male, mean age was 64.2 ± 9.6 years, and 93% had not experienced bleeding events or key ischemic events other than MI. Patients valued reduction in the risk of non-fatal intracranial hemorrhage more than CV death (p < 0.01) and CV death more than non-fatal ischemic events (p < 0.01). Preferences were similar in the acute and chronic populations (p = 0.17). However, older patients valued reduction in risk of MI more than younger patients (p = 0.04), and patients with bleeding risk factors valued reduction in the risk of CV death (p = 0.01) and MI (p = 0.01) less than patients without bleeding risk factors. Also, patients who were at high risk of future ischemic events valued reduction of the risk of CV death less than those at low risk (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Patient preferences for antithrombotic treatments were unaffected by disease stage but varied by bleeding risk and other factors. This heterogeneity in preferences is an important consideration because it can affect the benefit-risk balance and the acceptability of antithrombotic treatments to patients.

A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments in Oncology Treatments.

BACKGROUND: As the number and type of cancer treatments available rises and patients live with the consequences of their disease and treatments for longer, understanding preferences for cancer care can help inform decisions about optimal treatment development, access, and care provision. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are commonly used as a tool to elicit stakeholder preferences; however, their implementation in oncology may be challenging if burdensome trade-offs (e.g. length of life versus quality of life) are involved and/or target populations are small. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to characterise DCEs relating to cancer treatments that were conducted between 1990 and March 2020. DATA SOURCES: EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for relevant studies. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies were included if they implemented a DCE and reported outcomes of interest (i.e. quantitative outputs on participants' preferences for cancer treatments), but were excluded if they were not focused on pharmacological, radiological or surgical treatments (e.g. cancer screening or counselling services), were non-English, or were a secondary analysis of an included study. ANALYSIS METHODS: Analysis followed a narrative synthesis, and quantitative data were summarised using descriptive statistics, including rankings of attribute importance. RESULT: Seventy-nine studies were included in the review. The number of published DCEs relating to oncology grew over the review period. Studies were conducted in a range of indications (n = 19), most commonly breast (n =10, 13%) and prostate (n = 9, 11%) cancer, and most studies elicited preferences of patients (n = 59, 75%). Across reviewed studies, survival attributes were commonly ranked as most important, with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) ranked most important in 58% and 28% of models, respectively. Preferences varied between stakeholder groups, with patients and clinicians placing greater importance on survival outcomes, and general population samples valuing health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Despite the emphasis of guidelines on the importance of using qualitative research to inform attribute selection and DCE designs, reporting on instrument development was mixed. LIMITATIONS: No formal assessment of bias was conducted, with the scope of the paper instead providing a descriptive characterisation. The review only included DCEs relating to cancer treatments, and no insight is provided into other health technologies such as cancer screening. Only DCEs were included. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Although there was variation in attribute importance between responder types, survival attributes were consistently ranked as important by both patients and clinicians. Observed challenges included the risk of attribute dominance for survival outcomes, limited sample sizes in some indications, and a lack of reporting about instrument development processes. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020184232.

Patient Experiences, Satisfaction, and Expectations with Current Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Treatment: Results of the SLE-UPDATE Survey.

OBJECTIVES: To provide information on systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients' experiences, satisfaction, and expectations with treatments and examine the association between treatment satisfaction and patient-reported outcomes (PRO). METHODS: A cross-sectional, non-interventional, online survey of US adult patients with SLE was conducted in 2019. The survey consisted of 104 questions about SLE and the following PRO instruments: LupusPRO™, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) Fatigue, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI), an 11-point Worst Pain Numerical Rating scale (NRS), and an 11-point Worst Joint Pain NRS. RESULTS: Five hundred participants (75% female, 76% White/Caucasian, mean age 42.6 ± 12.7 years, 63% with an associate degree or higher) completed the survey. Most participants were "completely" or "somewhat satisfied" with their treatments, although satisfaction rates were lower for corticosteroids (65%), immunosuppressants (71%), and anti-malarials (55%) than for belimumab (intravenous or subcutaneous) (86%) and rituximab (94%). Treatments were more often considered "burdensome" or "very burdensome" for belimumab (67%) and rituximab (63%) than for corticosteroids (48%), immunosuppressants (49%), and anti-malarials (30%). Pain and productivity assessments supported substantial impairment for the majority of participants, even those who indicated that they were completely satisfied with treatments. The treatment goals most commonly reported as "very important" were reducing fatigue, pain, and the frequency or severity of flares. Three-quarters of participants (76.6%) indicated that their physician's goals for their therapy matched their own goals "very" or "somewhat closely." Despite high levels of satisfaction, most participants (63.0%) indicated that their physicians had not asked about their treatment goals during the past 3 months. CONCLUSION: SLE patients reported high rates of satisfaction with current therapies despite identifying substantial treatment burdens, residual pain, and fatigue. Reduced fatigue, pain, and flares were the most important treatment goals for these patients.

Patient experiences with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: a conceptual model of symptoms and impacts on quality of life.

BACKGROUND: Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is a primary myocardial disorder defined by left ventricular hypertrophy that cannot be explained by another cardiac or systemic disease. There is a general lack of knowledge about patients' perspectives on the symptoms and day-to-day limitations they experience as a result of HCM. We therefore sought an in-depth understanding of patients' experiences of obstructive (oHCM) and nonobstructive (nHCM) forms of the disease, including symptoms and their quality of life impacts, and to develop a conceptual model to capture them. METHODS: Development of the HCM conceptual model involved a web-based survey to capture patients' insights, a targeted literature review (which included relevant guidelines and patient advocacy websites), one-to-one interviews with clinical experts, and one-to-one qualitative concept elicitation interviews with patients. Key symptoms and their impacts most important to patients' experiences were identified and used to develop a conceptual model of the patient experience with HCM. RESULTS: The HCM symptoms reported by patient interviewees (n = 27) were largely consistent with findings from the patient web survey (n = 444), literature review, and interviews with three expert clinicians. The symptoms most commonly reported in patient interviews included tiredness (89%), shortness of breath (89%), shortness of breath with physical activity (89%), and dizziness/light-headedness (89%). Other symptoms commonly reported included chest pain (angina) (70%), chest pain (angina) with physical exertion (70%), and palpitations (fluttering or rapid heartbeat) (81%). The most commonly reported impacts of HCM symptoms on patients' lives included limitations to physical activities (78%), emotional impacts, including feeling anxious or depressed (78%), and impacts on work (63%). Symptoms and impacts were similar for both oHCM and nHCM. CONCLUSIONS: A conceptual model was developed, which identifies the core symptoms that patients with oHCM and nHCM reported as most frequent and most important: shortness of breath, palpitations, fatigue/tiredness, dizziness/light-headedness, and chest pain, as well as the impacts those symptoms have on patients' lives. This HCM conceptual model reflecting patients' experiences and perspectives was used in the development of a patient-reported outcomes instrument for use in clinical trials and it may also help inform the clinical management of HCM.

Patient-centered benefit-risk analysis of transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

Background: Aortic stenosis (AS) treatments include surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Choosing between SAVR and TAVR requires patients to trade-off  benefits and risks. The objective of this research was to determine which  TAVR and SAVR outcomes patients consider important, collect quantitative data about how patients weigh benefits and risks, and evaluate patients' preferences for SAVR or TAVR. Methods: Patients  were recruited from advocacy organization databases. Patients self-reported as being diagnosed with AS, and as either having received AS treatment or as experiencing AS-related physical activity limitations. An online adapted swing weighting (ASW) method - a pairwise comparison of attributes - was used to elicit attribute trade-offs from 219 patients. Survey data were used to estimate patients' weights for AS treatment attributes, which were incorporated into a quantitative benefit-risk analysis (BRA) to evaluate patients' preferences for TAVR and SAVR. Results: On average, patients put greater value on attributes that favored TAVR than SAVR. Patients' valuation of the lower mortality rate, reduced procedural invasiveness, and quicker time to return to normal quality of life associated with TAVR, offset their valuation of the time over which SAVR has been proven to work. There was substantial heterogeneity in patients' preferences. This was partly explained by age, with differences in preference observed between patients <60 years to those ≥60 years. A Monte Carlo Simulation found that 79.5% of patients prefer TAVR. Conclusions: Most AS patients are willing to tolerate sizable increases in clinical risk in exchange for the benefits of TAVR, resulting in a large proportion of patients preferring TAVR to SAVR. Further work should be undertaken to characterize the heterogeneity in preferences for AS treatment attributes. Shared decision-making tools based on attributes important to patients can support patients' selection of the procedure that best meets their needs.