Validation of the Physician's Global Assessment of Fingernail Psoriasis by Rheumatologists Treating Psoriatic Arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the content validity and reliability of the Physician's Global Assessment of Fingernail Psoriasis (PGA-F) by rheumatologists treating patients with psoriatic arthritis. METHODS: There were 3 stages of analyses with 3 clinician cohort groups. Stage 1 (concept confirmation) included rheumatologist qualitative data (cohort 1) to establish content validity, acceptability, utility, and feasibility of the PGA-F in assessing nail severity. Quantitative information regarding the response category utilization in nail abnormalities was assessed by photographs. Stage 2 (inter-rater reliability) involved quantitative analysis of PGA-F data from study investigators, including rheumatologists, involved in a phase III clinical study (cohort 2) and a cohort of newly recruited rheumatologists (cohort 3). Stage 3 included known-groups validity. RESULTS: Qualitative analyses identified consensus that the PGA-F severity levels are comprehensive of real-world patient symptoms and the instrument is simple to use and understand. Psychometric analyses support the PGA-F as a clinical outcome assessment tool. Inter-rater reliability showed rheumatologist agreement across the fingernail psoriasis severity spectrum. They were monotonically ordered by the hypothesized severity structure with excellent fit to the clinicians who evaluated them. Agreement on the rank order of the severity of the photographs in this target rheumatologist population was consistent with previous reports by dermatologists. CONCLUSIONS: The PGA-F was shown to be usable by rheumatologists to measure patients along the full range of the fingernail psoriasis severity spectrum, have a strong relationship with a conceptually similar reference measure, differentiate among patients based on fingernail psoriasis severity, and detect category severity change over a 24-week period.

Meaningful changes for efficacy outcomes in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.

Objective: Nasal Polyp Score (NPS) and Nasal Congestion Score (NCS) are commonly used clinical trial endpoints to determine improvements in response to treatment in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). However, limited information is available on within-patient meaningful change thresholds (MCTs) and between-group minimal important differences (MIDs) for NPS and NCS, which would aid interpretation of results. Methods: Data from phase 3 placebo-controlled trials of omalizumab in patients with CRSwNP (POLYP 1 and POLYP 2) were used to estimate MCTs and MIDs for both NPS and NCS using anchor-based methods. Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22) and SNOT-22 Sino-Nasal Symptoms Subscale (SNSS) scores were used as anchors (≥0.35 correlation with NPS and NCS). Within- and between-group differences in NPS and NCS change scores were used to estimate MCTs and MIDs, respectively. Identified MCTs were used in unblinded responder analyses to compare the proportions of patients per treatment group achieving a meaningful improvement. Results: MCTs and MIDs were estimated at -1.0 and -0.5 for NPS and -0.50 and -0.35 for NCS, respectively, and were consistent across studies. Overall, 57.0% of patients achieved the MCT in NPS with omalizumab vs 29.9% with placebo (p < 0.0001). Similarly, 58.9% of patients achieved the MCT in NCS with omalizumab vs 30.7% with placebo (p < 0.0001). Group differences in mean change were statistically significant and exceeded the estimated MIDs. Conclusions: Meaningful change estimates for NPS and NCS could be used to assess response to treatment for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.Trial registration: POLYP1: clinicaltrails.gov NCT03280550; registered September 12, 2017; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03280550). POLYP2 (clinicaltrials.gov NCT03280537; registered September 12, 2017; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03280537).

Structure and measurement properties of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care instrument.

OBJECTIVE: In this study, the authors investigated the psychometric properties of a modified version of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) - a self-report instrument designed to measure the extent to which patients with chronic illness receive care congruent with the chronic care model. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHOD: Five hundred and twenty-nine (529) type 2 diabetics were surveyed with a modified-PACIC. RESULTS: An exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis was conducted that accounted for the ordinal nature of the PACIC items. Ordinal alpha (0.972) and omega (0.973) reliability coefficients were calculated on the latent factor underlying the modified-PACIC. Correlation analyses were used to investigate the relationship between the modified-PACIC and numerous clinical labs related to diabetes. Validity for the original five-factor structure proposed by developers of the PACIC could not be confirmed. CONCLUSIONS: More research focusing on the instrument's psychometric properties is necessary before researchers use it to investigate the chronic care model and patient health. Researchers will need to ensure that the composite scores underlying the instrument are normally distributed and correlated with behavioural and health indexes.