Treatment satisfaction in type 2 diabetes patients taking empagliflozin compared with patients taking glimepiride.

PURPOSE: This exploratory analysis assessed and compared patients' treatment satisfaction with empagliflozin plus metformin versus glimepiride plus metformin, using data obtained from the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire, status version (DTSQs) collected in a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy clinical trial. METHODS: Observed values for DTSQs scale score and each of its eight items were summarized by visit and treatment arm. Changes from baseline in these scores were analyzed using linear mixed models for repeated measures. RESULTS: The baseline scale score and item scores were comparable between empagliflozin plus metformin (n = 765) and glimepiride plus metformin (n = 780). Compared with baseline, patients reported significant treatment satisfaction increases and significant decreases in perceived hyperglycemia with both treatments at all visits. Also, compared with baseline, a significant increase in perceived frequency of hypoglycemia was observed in the glimepiride treatment group at all visits. No statistically significant treatment difference was observed in DTSQs scale score and its items at week 104. The difference between the treatment groups was significant and in favor of empagliflozin from week 28 onward for perceived frequency of hyperglycemia (P ≤ 0.006) and perceived frequency of hypoglycemia (P ≤ 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: Despite positive trends in favor of empagliflozin, there was no significant difference in DTSQs scale score between empagliflozin and glimepiride at 104 weeks. However, when compared with glimepiride, empagliflozin demonstrated significantly lower perceived frequency of hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia at all visits from week 28 onward. This finding is consistent with the clinical results reported for the EMPA-REG H2H-SU trial.

Patient-reported outcome labeling claims and measurement approach for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treatments in the United States and European Union.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and its treatment significantly affect health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Our objectives were to evaluate and compare patient-reported outcome (PRO) claims granted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) for 5 recently approved mCRPC treatments and to examine key characteristics, development, and measurement properties of the PRO measures supporting these claims against current regulatory standards. METHODS: Five products approved for treatment of mCRPC by the FDA and the EMA (2010-2013) were examined: enzalutamide, abiraterone, sipuleucel-T, cabazitaxel, and radium Ra 223 dichloride. United States (US) drug approval packages and European Public Assessment Reports were reviewed. PRO claims in the US labels and European Summaries of Product Characteristics and supporting measures were identified. For PRO measures supporting claims, a targeted literature review was conducted to identify information on key characteristics and measurement properties; this information was compared against FDA PRO guidance criteria. RESULTS: Nine PRO "claims" were granted across 4 of 5 products reviewed. The EMA granted more claims (7 claims-4 for pain, 3 for HRQOL) than the FDA (2 claims, both for pain). The Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF) worst pain item supported most pain claims and was the only measure supporting US claims. EMA pain claims were supported by BPI-SF worst pain (n = 2) and average pain (n = 1) items and the McGill Pain Questionnaire Present Pain Intensity component (n = 1). EMA HRQOL claims were supported by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate Module (n = 2) and the EuroQol 5 Dimensions with visual analogue scale (n = 1). Pain and prostate cancer-specific HRQOL measures supporting claims met US regulatory standards for construct validity, reliability, and responsiveness; these properties were strongest for the BPI-SF worst pain item. Only the BPI-SF worst pain item has documented content validity in mCRPC. CONCLUSIONS: PRO label claims were commonly granted across the mCRPC products reviewed. Among the measures reviewed, only the BPI-SF worst pain item supported US label claims. The BPI-SF worst pain item is recommended for pain assessment for the evaluation of new mCRPC treatments.