Health-related quality of life across disease stages in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: results from a real-world survey.

BACKGROUND: Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is characterized by a rapid disease course, with disease severity being associated with declining health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in persons living with ALS (pALS). The main objective of this study was to assess the impact of disease progression on HRQoL across King's, Milano-Torino Staging (MiToS), and physician-judgement clinical staging. Additionally, we evaluated the impact of the disease on the HRQoL of care partners (cALS). METHODS: Data were sourced from the Adelphi ALS Disease Specific Programme (DSP)™, a cross-sectional survey of neurologists, pALS and cALS presenting in a real-world clinical setting between July 2020 and March 2021 in Europe and the United States. RESULTS: Neurologists (n = 142) provided data for 880 pALS. There were significant negative correlations between all three clinical staging systems and EuroQol (European Quality of Life) Five Dimension Five Level Scale (EQ-5D-5L) utility scores and visual analogue scale (VAS) ratings. Although not all differences were significant, 5-item Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Assessment Questionnaire (ALSAQ-5) scores showed a stepwise increase in HRQoL impairment at each stage of the disease regardless of the staging system. At later stages, high levels of fatigue and substantial activity impairment were reported. As pALS disease states progressed, cALS also experienced a decline in HRQoL and increased burden. CONCLUSIONS: Across outcomes, pALS and cALS generally reported worse outcomes at later stages of the disease, highlighting an unmet need in this population for strategies to maximise QoL despite disease progression. Recognition and treatment of symptoms such as pain and fatigue may lead to improved outcomes for pALS and cALS.

Healthcare resource utilization at different stages of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: Results from a real-world survey.

People with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (pALS) require complex, multi-disciplinary care, resulting in extensive healthcare resource utilization (HCRU). To investigate the relationship between HCRU and ALS progression, the study objectives were (i) to characterize HCRU in pALS and (ii) to establish whether this varied according to disease stage, as defined using three different methodologies: neurologist-defined early/mid/late stage, the King's clinical staging system for ALS, and the Milan Torino Staging system for ALS (MiToS). Real-world data were drawn from the Adelphi ALS Disease-Specific Programme™, a point-in-time survey of neurologists in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK, and the USA conducted July 2020-March 2021. The analysis included survey responses from 142 physicians with respect to 880 pALS. With advancing ALS stage, significant differences were observed in the number of healthcare professional consultations and X-rays per person (both p < 0.05 for all staging systems), and the proportion of pALS with emergency room admissions, intensive care unit admissions, and assisted ventilation (all p < 0.05 for all staging systems). Across stages, >55% of pALS received care from a general neurologist and a general/primary care practitioner. With increasing stage, there was a significant difference in the proportion receiving care from a physical therapist, pulmonologist/respiratory care practitioner, respiratory therapist, speech/language therapist, and palliative care team, and in the proportion receiving care only from professional caregivers (all p < 0.05 for all staging systems). This study confirmed the substantial HCRU required to support pALS through all stages of ALS and highlighted an increasing need for healthcare resources as the disease progresses.

Number Needed to Treat and Number Needed to Harm analysis of the zuranolone phase 2 clinical trial results in major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: Zuranolone (SAGE-217) is a novel, investigational positive allosteric modulator of GABAA receptors being investigated in major depressive disorder (MDD). This analysis of phase 2 data quantified the benefit and risk of zuranolone (30mg) versus placebo and antidepressants in terms of number needed to treat (NNT) and number needed to harm (NNH). METHODS: Rates of response, remission, and all-cause discontinuation for zuranolone and 11 antidepressant comparators were obtained from the zuranolone phase 2 clinical study (N=89) and a published network meta-analysis, respectively. An indirect treatment comparison was conducted using the Bucher method to compare zuranolone to standard-of-care. RESULTS: Zuranolone demonstrated greater benefit compared to placebo on Day 3 (NNT range for response=4-5, NNT for remission=10) and at Day 15 (NNT=3 for response and remission). Compared to SSRIs and SNRIs, zuranolone at Day 15 showed improved treatment response (NNT=4 [95% CI = 3; 16] and 5 [95% CI = 3; 25], respectively) and remission (NNT=4 [95% CI = 2; 13] and 4 [95% CI = 2; 18], respectively). This was accompanied by a reduction in all-cause discontinuation, with negative NNH values (-57 and -28), respectively. LIMITATIONS: Variations in study design across the included trials may limit the generalizability of results. CONCLUSIONS: With a small positive NNT as early as Day 3 indicating robust benefit and a negative NNH indicating reduced harm, this analysis based on a phase 2 study suggests that patients with MDD may benefit from the benefit-to-risk profile of zuranolone.