The impact of different data handling strategies in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of diary measures: an evaluation using simulated and real-world asthma nighttime symptoms diary data.

BACKGROUND: Daily diaries are an important modality for patient-reported outcome assessment. They typically comprise multiple questions, so understanding their underlying structure is key to appropriate analysis and interpretation. Structural evaluation of such measures poses challenges due to the high volume of repeated measurements. Potential strategies include selecting a single day, averaging item-level observations over time, or using all data while accounting for its multilevel structure. METHOD: The above strategies were evaluated in a simulated dataset via exploratory and confirmatory factor modelling by comparing their impact on various estimates (i.e., inter-item correlations, factor loadings, model fit). Each strategy was additionally explored using real-world data from an observational study (the Asthma Nighttime Symptoms Diary). RESULTS: Both single day and item average strategies resulted in biased factor loadings. The former displayed lower overall bias (single day: 0.064; item average: 0.121) and mean square error (single day: 0.007; item average: 0.016) but greater frequency of incorrect factor number identification compared with the latter (single day: 46.4%; item average: 0%). Increased estimated inter-item correlations were apparent in the item-average method. Non-trivial between- and within-person variance highlighted the utility of a multilevel approach. However, convergence issues and Heywood cases were more common under the multilevel approach (90.2% and 100.0%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that a multilevel approach can enhance our insight when evaluating the structural properties of daily diary data; however, implementation challenges still remain. Our work offers guidance on the impact of data handling decisions in diary assessment.

The ASCEND-NHQ randomized trial found positive effects of daprodustat on hemoglobin and quality of life in patients with non-dialysis chronic kidney disease.

The ASCEND-NHQ trial evaluated the effects of daprodustat on hemoglobin and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form Survey (SF-36) Vitality score (fatigue) in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) stages 3-5, hemoglobin 8.5-10.0 g/dl, transferrin saturation 15% or more, and ferritin 50 ng/ml or more without recent erythropoiesis-stimulating agent use were randomized (1:1) to oral daprodustat or placebo to achieve and maintain target hemoglobin of 11-12 g/dl over 28 weeks. The primary endpoint was the mean change in hemoglobin between baseline and the evaluation period (Weeks 24-28). Principal secondary endpoints were proportion of participants with a 1 g/dl or more increase in hemoglobin and mean change in the Vitality score between baseline and Week 28. Outcome superiority was tested (1-sided alpha level of 0.025). Overall, 614 participants with non-dialysis-dependent CKD were randomized. The adjusted mean change in hemoglobin from baseline to the evaluation period was greater with daprodustat (1.58 vs 0.19 g/dl). The adjusted mean treatment difference (AMD) was significant at 1.40 g/dl (95% confidence interval 1.23, 1.56). A significantly greater proportion of participants receiving daprodustat showed a 1 g/dl or greater increase in hemoglobin from baseline (77% vs 18%). The mean SF-36 Vitality score increased by 7.3 and 1.9 points with daprodustat and placebo, respectively; a clinically and statistically significant 5.4 point Week 28 AMD increase. Adverse event rates were similar (69% vs 71%); relative risk 0.98, (95% confidence interval 0.88, 1.09). Thus, in participants with CKD stages 3-5, daprodustat resulted in a significant increase in hemoglobin and improvement in fatigue without an increase in the overall frequency of adverse events.

A qualitative study to explore the symptoms and impacts of Crohn's disease and to develop the Crohn's Disease Diary.

PURPOSE: To explore symptoms and disease impacts of Crohn's disease and to develop a new patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measure according to industry best practices. METHODS: A conceptual model of relevant symptoms experienced by patients with Crohn's disease was developed following a literature review. Three rounds of combined qualitative semi-structured concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews with 36 patients (≥ 16 years) with Crohn's disease and 4 clinicians were conducted to further explore the most commonly reported and most bothersome symptoms to patients. Interview results were used to update the conceptual model as well as items and response options included in The Crohn's Disease Diary, a new PRO measure. RESULTS: All patients (N = 36) reported abdominal pain, loose or liquid bowel movements, and high or increased frequency of bowel movements, with most reporting these symptoms spontaneously (100%, 92%, and 75%, respectively). All patients reported bowel movement urgency, but 61% reported this symptom only when probed. Most also reported that symptoms impacted activities of daily living, work/school, and emotional, social, and physical functioning (overall, 78%-100%; spontaneously, 79% - 92%). Data regarding core symptoms of Crohn's disease from clinician concept elicitation interviews supported patient data. The 17-item Crohn's Disease Diary assesses core symptoms and impacts of Crohn's disease over 24 h, and extraintestinal manifestations over 7 days. The content validity of the diary was confirmed during cognitive debriefing interviews. CONCLUSION: The Crohn's Disease Diary is a new PRO measure for the assessment of Crohn's disease symptoms and impacts, developed according to industry best practices.

Content validity and psychometric properties of the inFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome Plus (FLU-PRO Plus©) instrument in patients with COVID-19.

PURPOSE: A well-defined and reliable patient-reported outcome instrument for COVID-19 is important for assessing symptom severity and supporting research studies. The InFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO) instrument has been expanded to include loss of taste and smell in the FLU-PRO Plus, to comprehensively cover COVID-19 symptoms. Our studies were designed to evaluate and validate the FLU-PRO Plus among patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Two studies were conducted: (1) a qualitative, non-interventional, cross-sectional study of patients with COVID-19 involving hybrid concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews; (2) a psychometric evaluation of the measurement properties of FLU-PRO Plus, using data from COMET-ICE (COVID-19 Monoclonal antibody Efficacy Trial-Intent to Care Early). RESULTS: In the qualitative interviews (n = 30), all 34 items of the FLU-PRO Plus were considered relevant to COVID-19, and participants determined the questionnaire was easily understood, well written, and comprehensive. In the psychometric evaluation (n = 845), the internal consistency reliability of FLU-PRO Plus total score was 0.94, ranging from 0.71 to 0.90 for domain scores. Reproducibility (Day 20-21) was 0.83 for total score, with domain scores of 0.67-0.89. Confirmatory factor analysis with the novel smell/taste domain demonstrated an acceptable fit to the data. CONCLUSION: The content, reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the FLU-PRO Plus in the COVID-19 population were supported. Our results suggest that FLU-PRO Plus is a content- and psychometrically-valid, fit-for-purpose measure which is easily understood by patients. FLU-PRO Plus is a suitable PRO measure for evaluating symptoms of COVID-19 and treatment benefit directly from the patient perspective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.Gov: NCT04545060, September 10, 2020; retrospectively registered.

Comparison of outcomes on hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl hydroxylase inhibitors (HIF-PHIs) in anaemia associated with chronic kidney disease: network meta-analyses in dialysis and non-dialysis dependent populations.

Background: Hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl hydroxylase inhibitors (HIF-PHIs) are oral alternatives to current standard-of-care treatments for anaemia in chronic kidney disease (CKD). We conducted network meta-analyses to indirectly compare clinical outcomes for three HIF-PHIs in dialysis and non-dialysis populations with anaemia in CKD. Methods: The evidence base comprised phase III, randomised, controlled trials evaluating daprodustat, roxadustat, or vadadustat. Three outcomes were evaluated: efficacy [change from baseline in haemoglobin (Hgb)], cardiovascular safety [time to first major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE)] and quality of life [change from baseline in 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) Vitality score]. Analyses were performed separately for all patients and for erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) non-users at baseline (non-dialysis population) or prevalent dialysis patients (dialysis population). Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods with non-informative priors were used to estimate the posterior probability distribution and generate pairwise treatment comparisons. Point estimates (medians of posterior distributions) and 95% credible intervals (CrI) were calculated. Results: Seventeen trials were included. In non-dialysis patients, there were no clinically meaningful differences between the three HIF-PHIs with respect to Hgb change from baseline [all patients analysis (total n = 7907): daprodustat vs. roxadustat, 0.09 g/dL (95% CrI -0.14, 0.31); daprodustat vs. vadadustat, 0.09 g/dL (-0.04, 0.21); roxadustat vs. vadadustat, 0.00 g/dL (-0.22, 0.22)] or risk of MACE [all patients analysis (total n = 7959): daprodustat vs. roxadustat, hazard ratio (HR) 1.16 (95% CrI 0.76, 1.77); daprodustat vs. vadadustat, 0.88 (0.71, 1.09); roxadustat vs. vadadustat, 0.76 (0.50, 1.16)]. Daprodustat showed a greater increase in SF-36 Vitality compared with roxadustat [total n = 4880; treatment difference 4.70 points (95% CrI 0.08, 9.31)]. In dialysis patients, Hgb change from baseline was higher with daprodustat and roxadustat compared with vadadustat [all patients analysis (total n = 11 124): daprodustat, 0.34 g/dL (0.22, 0.45); roxadustat, 0.38 g/dL (0.27, 0.49)], while there were no clinically meaningful differences in the risk of MACE between the HIF-PHIs [all patients analysis (total n = 12 320): daprodustat vs. roxadustat, HR 0.89 (0.73, 1.08); daprodustat vs. vadadustat, HR 0.99 (0.82, 1.21); roxadustat vs. vadadustat, HR 1.12 (0.92, 1.37)]. Results were similar in analyses of ESA non-users and prevalent dialysis patients. Conclusions: In the setting of anaemia in CKD, indirect treatment comparisons suggest that daprodustat, roxadustat, and vadadustat are broadly clinically comparable in terms of efficacy and cardiovascular safety (precision was low for the latter), while daprodustat may be associated with reduction in fatigue to a greater extent than roxadustat.

Assessment of symptoms in COMET-ICE, a phase 2/3 study of sotrovimab for early treatment of non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The COMET-ICE trial demonstrated that sotrovimab clinically and statistically significantly reduces the risk of all-cause > 24-h hospitalization or death due to any cause among patients with COVID-19 at high risk of disease progression. Patient-reported outcomes are important to capture symptom burden of COVID-19 and assess treatment effectiveness. This study investigated symptoms and their impact over the acute phase of COVID-19 infection among patients on sotrovimab versus placebo. METHODS: Randomized (1:1), double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled, phase 2/3 study in 57 centers across five countries. Participants were non-hospitalized patients with symptomatic, mild-to-moderate COVID-19 and ≥ 1 baseline risk factor for disease progression (aged ≥ 55 years or ≥ 1 of the following: diabetes requiring medication, obesity, chronic kidney disease, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or moderate-to-severe asthma). An intravenous infusion of sotrovimab 500 mg or placebo was administered on Day 1. The FLU-PRO Plus questionnaire was administered once-daily with 24-h recall from Day 1-21, and at Day 29. Intensity and duration of COVID-19 symptoms were determined from area under the curve (AUC) and mean change in total and individual domain scores through Days 7, 14, and 21. Time to symptom alleviation was assessed. RESULTS: In total, 1057 patients were randomized to sotrovimab (n = 528) or placebo (n = 529). At Day 7, mean decrease in FLU-PRO Plus total score (measured by AUC) was statistically significantly greater for patients on sotrovimab (-3.05 [95% confidence interval (CI) -3.27 to -2.83]) than placebo (-1.98 [95% CI -2.20 to -1.76]; difference -1.07 [95% CI -1.38 to -0.76]; p < 0.001). Significant differences were also observed at Days 14 and 21. A more rapid decline in symptom severity was observed with sotrovimab versus placebo through Week 1 and the first 21 days post-treatment. By Day 21, 41% of patients on sotrovimab and 34% on placebo reported symptom resolution. In a post-hoc analysis, median time to symptom alleviation was 4 and 6 days, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Sotrovimab provides significant and rapid improvements in patient-reported COVID-19 symptoms, as measured by the FLU-PRO Plus. These results further show the benefits of sotrovimab in alleviating symptoms among high-risk patients with COVID-19. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.Gov: NCT04545060 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04545060 ). Date of registration: September 10, 2020 (retrospectively registered).

Early and sustained symptom improvement with umeclidinium/vilanterol versus monotherapy in COPD: a post hoc analysis of the EMAX randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), both the time needed for patients to gain symptom improvement with long-acting bronchodilator therapy and whether an early response is predictive of a sustained response is unknown. This study aimed to investigate how quickly meaningful symptom responses are seen in patients with COPD with bronchodilator therapy and whether these responses are sustained. METHODS: Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability (EMAX) was a 24-week, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group trial that randomised patients to umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI), umeclidinium or salmeterol. Daily Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RS:COPD) score and rescue salbutamol use were captured via an electronic diary and analysed initially in 4-weekly periods. Post hoc analyses assessed change from baseline in daily E-RS:COPD score and rescue medication use weekly (Weeks 1-8), and association between E-RS:COPD responder status at Weeks 1-4 and later time points. RESULTS: In the intent-to-treat population (n = 2425), reductions from baseline in E-RS:COPD scores and rescue medication use were apparent from Day 2 with all treatments. Treatment differences for UMEC/VI versus either monotherapy plateaued by Week 4-8 and were sustained at Weeks 21-24; improvements were consistently greater with UMEC/VI. For all treatments, most patients (60-85%) retained their Weeks 1-4 E-RS:COPD responder/non-responder status at Weeks 21-24. Among patients receiving UMEC/VI who were E-RS:COPD responders at Weeks 1-4, 70% were responders at Weeks 21-24. CONCLUSION: Patients with symptomatic COPD had greater potential for early symptom improvements with UMEC/VI versus either monotherapy. This benefit was generally maintained for 24 weeks. Early monitoring of treatment response can provide clinicians with an early indication of a patient's likely longer-term response to prescribed bronchodilator treatment and will facilitate appropriate early adjustments in care. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03034915, 2016-002513-22 (EudraCT Number). The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Defining Chronic Mucus Hypersecretion Using the CAT in the SPIROMICS Cohort.

Background: Chronic cough and phlegm are frequently reported chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) symptoms. Prior research classified chronic mucus hypersecretion (CMH) based on the presence of these symptoms for ≥3 months, called chronic bronchitis (CB) if respiratory infection symptoms were present for 1-2 years (Medical Research Council [MRC] definition). We explored whether the COPD Assessment Test (CAT), a simple measure developed for routine clinical use, captures CMH populations and outcomes similarly to MRC and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) definitions. Methods: We identified CMH in the SPIROMICS COPD cohort using (a) MRC definitions, (b) SGRQ questions for cough and phlegm (both as most/several days a week), and (c) CAT cough and phlegm questions. We determined optimal cut-points for CAT items and described exacerbation frequencies for different CMH definitions. Moderate exacerbations required a new prescription for antibiotics/oral corticosteroids or emergency department visit; severe exacerbations required hospitalization. Results were stratified by smoking status. Results: In a population of 1431 participants (57% male; mean FEV1% predicted 61%), 47% and 49% of evaluable participants had SGRQ- or CAT-defined CMH, respectively. A cut-point of ≥2 for cough and phlegm items defined CMH in CAT. Among SGRQ-CMH+ participants, 80% were also defined as CMH+ by the CAT. CMH+ participants were more likely to be current smokers. A higher exacerbation frequency was observed for presence of CMH+ versus CMH- in the year prior to baseline for all CMH definitions; this trend continued across 3 years of follow-up, regardless of smoking status. Conclusion: Items from the CAT identified SGRQ-defined CMH, a frequent COPD trait that correlated with exacerbation frequency. The CAT is a short, simple questionnaire and a potentially valuable tool for telemedicine or real-world trials. CAT-based CMH is a novel approach for identifying clinically important characteristics in COPD that can be ascertained in these settings.