Factor Analysis in Distinguishing Coronavirus Disease 2019 From Other Influenza-like Illness Using a Validated Patient-Reported Outcome Instrument FLU-PRO Plus: A Prospective Real-world Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: InFLUenza Patient-reported Outcome (FLU-PRO Plus) is a 34-item patient-reported outcome instrument designed to capture the intensity and frequency of viral respiratory symptoms. This study evaluates whether FLU-PRO Plus responses could discriminate between symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and influenza-like illness (ILI) with no COVID diagnosis, as well as forecast disease progression. METHODS: FLU-PRO Plus was administered daily for 14 days. Exploratory factor analysis was used to reduce the FLU-PRO Plus responses on the first day to 3 factors interpreted as "symptom clusters." The 3 clusters were used to predict COVID-19 versus ILI diagnosis in logistic regression. Correlation between the clusters and quality of life (QoL) measures was used to assess concurrent validity. The timing of self-reported return to usual health in the 14-day period was estimated as a function of the clusters within COVID-19 and ILI groups. RESULTS: Three hundred fourteen patients completed day 1 FLU-PRO Plus, of which 65% had a COVID-19 diagnosis. Exploratory factor analysis identified 3 symptom clusters: (1)general Body, (2) tracheal/bronchial, and (3) nasopharyngeal. Higher nasopharyngeal scores were associated with higher odds of COVID-19 compared with ILI diagnosis [adjusted odds ratio = 1.61 (1.21, 2.12)]. Higher tracheal/bronchial scores were associated with lower odds of COVID-19 [0.58 (0.44, 0.77)]. The 3 symptom clusters were correlated with multiple QoL measures ( r = 0.14-0.56). Higher scores on the general body and tracheal/bronchial symptom clusters were associated with prolonged time to return to usual health [adjusted hazard ratios: 0.76 (0.64, 0.91), 0.80 (0.67, 0.96)]. CONCLUSION: Three symptom clusters identified from FLU-PRO Plus responses successfully discriminated patients with COVID-19 from non-COVID ILI and were associated with QoL and predicted symptom duration.

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.

Systematic surveillance of patient-reported symptoms of viral respiratory tract infectious Syndromes in diverse populations.

BACKGROUND: Patient reported outcome measures (PROM) can improve patient care and be crucial for symptom tracking especially during disease outbreaks. FLU-PRO Plus is a validated PROM used to track viral respiratory symptoms. Our study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of using FLU-PRO© Plus, to track symptoms across three healthcare systems. METHODS: The prospective, longitudinal study recruited adults between February-May 2021 from HealthPartners Institute (HP), Kaiser Permanente Georgia (KPGA), and Kaiser Permanente Mid-Atlantic States (KPMAS). Adult members were eligible if they had a positive lab or diagnosis for either COVID-19 or influenza-like illness (ILI) or exhibited 2 + viral respiratory symptoms. Descriptive statistics were calculated to describe the patient characteristics for participants that were eligible for FLU-PRO Plus, successfully contacted, attempted to log in to the FLU-PRO Plus website, and participants who completed FLU-PRO Plus Day 1. Bivariable and multivariable logistic regression using PROC GLIMMIXX investigated the patient characteristics associated with (1) successful contact and (2) FLU-PRO Plus Day 1 completion. RESULTS: We identified a total of 15,650 eligible participants during the enrollment period: 9,582 from HP, 1,740 from KPGA, and 4,328 from KPMAS. Among the total of 409 eligible adults who attempted to participate in FLU-PRO Plus, 317 completed FLU-PRO Plus Day 1. Among the 317 individuals that completed FLU-PRO Plus Day 1, 205 (67.5%) were diagnosed with COVID-19; 112 adults diagnosed with COVID-19 completed FLU-PRO Plus Day 14. Among adults successfully contacted, adults aged 35-64 (OR = 1.40, 95% CI 1.05, 1.87), females (OR = 1.77, 95% CI 1.38, 2.27), and adults diagnosed with COVID-19 (OR = 1.66, 95% CI 1.27, 2.17) had higher odds of completing FLU-PRO Plus Day 1; Asian adults (OR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.19, 0.76) and Black and African American adults (OR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.19, 0.76) had lower odds compared to White adults. CONCLUSION: Our study reports on the feasibility of patients across three integrated healthcare systems utilizing FLU-PRO Plus to monitor their respiratory symptoms. Patient reported outcome measures (PROM) can improve patient care, quality of life, and reduce the strain of limited resources on healthcare systems. Future FLU-PRO Plus studies should develop an implementation strategy to fully integrate FLU-PRO Plus within clinical care and patient management.

Association Between Caseload Surge and COVID-19 Survival in 558 U.S. Hospitals, March to August 2020.

BACKGROUND: Several U.S. hospitals had surges in COVID-19 caseload, but their effect on COVID-19 survival rates remains unclear, especially independent of temporal changes in survival. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between hospitals' severity-weighted COVID-19 caseload and COVID-19 mortality risk and identify effect modifiers of this relationship. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04688372). SETTING: 558 U.S. hospitals in the Premier Healthcare Database. PARTICIPANTS: Adult COVID-19-coded inpatients admitted from March to August 2020 with discharge dispositions by October 2020. MEASUREMENTS: Each hospital-month was stratified by percentile rank on a surge index (a severity-weighted measure of COVID-19 caseload relative to pre-COVID-19 bed capacity). The effect of surge index on risk-adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of in-hospital mortality or discharge to hospice was calculated using hierarchical modeling; interaction by surge attributes was assessed. RESULTS: Of 144 116 inpatients with COVID-19 at 558 U.S. hospitals, 78 144 (54.2%) were admitted to hospitals in the top surge index decile. Overall, 25 344 (17.6%) died; crude COVID-19 mortality decreased over time across all surge index strata. However, compared with nonsurging (<50th surge index percentile) hospital-months, aORs in the 50th to 75th, 75th to 90th, 90th to 95th, 95th to 99th, and greater than 99th percentiles were 1.11 (95% CI, 1.01 to 1.23), 1.24 (CI, 1.12 to 1.38), 1.42 (CI, 1.27 to 1.60), 1.59 (CI, 1.41 to 1.80), and 2.00 (CI, 1.69 to 2.38), respectively. The surge index was associated with mortality across ward, intensive care unit, and intubated patients. The surge-mortality relationship was stronger in June to August than in March to May (slope difference, 0.10 [CI, 0.033 to 0.16]) despite greater corticosteroid use and more judicious intubation during later and higher-surging months. Nearly 1 in 4 COVID-19 deaths (5868 [CI, 3584 to 8171]; 23.2%) was potentially attributable to hospitals strained by surging caseload. LIMITATION: Residual confounding. CONCLUSION: Despite improvements in COVID-19 survival between March and August 2020, surges in hospital COVID-19 caseload remained detrimental to survival and potentially eroded benefits gained from emerging treatments. Bolstering preventive measures and supporting surging hospitals will save many lives. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the National Cancer Institute.

Pharmacoepidemiology of Ceftazidime-Avibactam Use: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis of 210 US Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Ceftazidime-avibactam has in vitro activity against some carbapenem-resistant gram-negative infections (GNIs), and therefore may be a useful alternative to more toxic antibiotics such as colistin. Understanding ceftazidime-avibactam uptake and usage patterns would inform hospital formularies, stewardship, and antibiotic development. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study assessed inpatient encounters in the Vizient database. Ceftazidime-avibactam and colistin administrations were categorized into presumed empiric (3 consecutive days of therapy or less with qualifying exclusions) versus targeted therapy (≥4 consecutive days of therapy) for presumed carbapenem-resistant GNIs. Quarterly percentage change (QPC) using modified Poisson regression and relative change in frequency of targeted ceftazidime-avibactam to colistin encounters was calculated. Factors associated with preferentially receiving targeted ceftazidime-avibactam versus colistin were identified using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Between 2015 quarter (q) 1 and 2017q4, ceftazidime-avibactam was administered 21 215 times across 1901 encounters. Inpatient prescriptions for ceftazidime-avibactam increased from 0.44/10 000 hospitalizations in 2015q1 to 7.7/10 000 in 2017q4 (QPC, +11%; 95% CI, 10-13%; P < .01), while conversely colistin prescriptions decreased quarterly by 5% (95% CI, 4-6%; P < .01). Ceftazidime-avibactam therapy was categorized as empiric 25% of the time, targeted 65% of the time, and indeterminate 10% of the time. Patients with chronic kidney disease were twice as likely to receive targeted ceftazidime-avibactam versus colistin (RR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.82-2.25), whereas those on dialysis were less likely to receive ceftazidime-avibactam than colistin (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, .61-.83). CONCLUSIONS: Since approval in 2015, ceftazidime-avibactam use has grown for presumed carbapenem-resistant GNIs, while colistin has correspondingly declined. Renal function drove the choice between ceftazidime-avibactam and colistin as targeted therapy.

Different epidemiological profiles in patients with Zika and dengue infection in Tapachula, Chiapas in Mexico (2016-2018): an observational, prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of Zika and chikungunya to dengue hyperendemic regions increased interest in better understanding characteristics of these infections. We conducted a cohort study in Mexico to evaluate the natural history of Zika infection. We describe here the frequency of Zika, chikungunya and dengue virus infections immediately after Zika introduction in Mexico, and baseline characteristics of participants for each type of infection. METHODS: Prospective, observational cohort evaluating the natural history of Zika virus infection in the Mexico-Guatemala border area. Patients with fever, rash or both, meeting the modified criteria of PAHO for probable Zika cases were enrolled (June 2016-July 2018) and followed-up for 6 months. We collected data on sociodemographic, environmental exposure, clinical and laboratory characteristics. Diagnosis was established based on viral RNA identification in serum and urine samples using RT-PCR for Zika, chikungunya, and dengue. We describe the baseline sociodemographic and environmental exposure characteristics of participants according to diagnosis, and the frequency of these infections over a two-year period immediately after Zika introduction in Mexico. RESULTS: We enrolled 427 participants. Most patients (n = 307, 65.7%) had an acute illness episode with no identified pathogen (UIE), 37 (8%) Zika, 82 (17.6%) dengue, and 1 (0.2%) chikungunya. In 2016 Zika predominated, declined in 2017 and disappeared in 2018; while dengue increased after 2017. Patients with dengue were more likely to be men, younger, and with lower education than those with Zika and UIE. They also reported closer contact with water sources, and with other people diagnosed with dengue. Participants with Zika reported sexual exposure more frequently than people with dengue and UIE. Zika was more likely to be identified in urine while dengue was more likely found in blood in the first seven days of symptoms; but PCR results for both were similar at day 7-14 after symptom onset. CONCLUSIONS: During the first 2 years of Zika introduction to this dengue hyper-endemic region, frequency of Zika peaked and fell over a two-year period; while dengue progressively increased with a predominance in 2018. Different epidemiologic patterns between Zika, dengue and UIE were observed. Trial registration Clinical.Trials.gov (NCT02831699).

Prospective Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 Seroconversion (PASS) study: an observational cohort study of SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination in healthcare workers.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 is a recently emerged pandemic coronavirus (CoV) capable of causing severe respiratory illness. However, a significant number of infected people present as asymptomatic or pauci-symptomatic. In this prospective assessment of at-risk healthcare workers (HCWs) we seek to determine whether pre-existing antibody or T cell responses to previous seasonal human coronavirus (HCoV) infections affect immunological or clinical responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection or vaccination. METHODS: A cohort of 300 healthcare workers, confirmed negative for SARS-CoV-2 exposure upon study entry, will be followed for up to 1 year with monthly serology analysis of IgM and IgG antibodies against the spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2 and the four major seasonal human coronavirus - HCoV-OC43, HCoV-HKU1, HCoV-229E, and HCoV-NL63. Participants will complete monthly questionnaires that ask about Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) exposure risks, and a standardized, validated symptom questionnaire (scoring viral respiratory disease symptoms, intensity and severity) at least twice monthly and any day when any symptoms manifest. SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing will be performed any time participants develop symptoms consistent with COVID-19. For those individuals that seroconvert and/or test positive by SARS-CoV-2 PCR, or receive the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, additional studies of T cell activation and cytokine production in response to SARS-CoV-2 peptide pools and analysis of Natural Killer cell numbers and function will be conducted on that participant's cryopreserved baseline peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs). Following the first year of this study we will further analyze those participants having tested positive for COVID-19, and/or having received an authorized/licensed SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, quarterly (year 2) and semi-annually (years 3 and 4) to investigate immune response longevity. DISCUSSION: This study will determine the frequency of asymptomatic and pauci-symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in a cohort of at-risk healthcare workers. Baseline and longitudinal assays will determine the frequency and magnitude of anti-spike glycoprotein antibodies to the seasonal HCoV-OC43, HCoV-HKU1, HCoV-229E, and HCoV-NL63, and may inform whether pre-existing antibodies to these human coronaviruses are associated with altered COVID-19 disease course. Finally, this study will evaluate whether pre-existing immune responses to seasonal HCoVs affect the magnitude and duration of antibody and T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, adjusting for demographic covariates.

Evaluation of Efficacy Endpoints for a Phase IIb Study of a Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccine in Older Adults Using Patient-Reported Outcomes With Laboratory Confirmation.

OBJECTIVES: There are no approved vaccines for respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and consensus on methods to assess RSV vaccine efficacy has not been established. In this study of an adjuvanted RSV vaccine, we evaluated an RSV disease endpoint using a patient-reported outcome instrument (the inFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome instrument [FLU-PRO]) and molecular testing for virologic confirmation. METHODS: In a randomized, blinded efficacy study (NCT02508194), 1900 adult participants aged ≥60 years who had any respiratory symptom lasting ≥24 hours recorded symptoms in a FLU-PRO-based workbook for 21 days, self-collected nasal swabs on illness days 2 to 4, and had a site-collected swab obtained on (approximately) day 4. The endpoint, acute RSV-associated respiratory illness (ARA-RI), required specific symptoms with virologic confirmation. RESULTS: The FLU-PRO demonstrated reliability, ability to detect change, and validity and had high participant adherence and acceptable patient burden in the setting of an RSV prevention trial. The ARA-RI endpoint definition captured all 33 virologically confirmed RSV illnesses for which symptom data were provided, and in 32 of these, at least 1 lower respiratory symptom was reported. Sensitivity analysis with an endpoint requiring ≥2 lower respiratory symptoms captured greater symptom severity but fewer cases. Results of self- and site-collected swabs were highly correlated. Self-swabbing detected 9 additional cases that would have been missed by site swabbing only. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrated the reliability and validity of the ARA-RI definition and of the FLU-PRO for use in RSV studies. Self-swabbing improved RSV detection.

Evidence-Based Study Design for Hospital-Acquired Bacterial Pneumonia and Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: The US Food and Drug Administration solicited evidence-based recommendations to improve guidance for studies of hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP) and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP). METHODS: We analyzed 7 HABP/VABP datasets to explore novel noninferiority study endpoints and designs, focusing on alternatives to all-cause mortality (ACM). RESULTS: ACM at day 28 differed for ventilated HABP (27.8%), VABP (18.0%), and nonventilated HABP (14.5%). A "mortality-plus" (ACM+) composite endpoint was constructed by combining ACM with patient-relevant, infection-related adverse events from the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities toxic/septic shock standardized query. The ACM+ rate was 3-10 percentage points above that of ACM across the studies and treatment groups. Predictors of higher ACM/ACM+ rates included older age and elevated acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) II score. Only patients in the nonventilated HABP group were able to report pneumonia symptom changes. CONCLUSIONS: If disease groups and patient characteristics in future studies produce an ACM rate so low (<10%-15%) that a fixed noninferiority margin of 10% cannot be justified (requiring an odds ratio analysis), an ACM+ endpoint could lower sample size. Enrichment of studies with patients with a higher severity of illness would increase ACM. Data on symptom resolution in nonventilated HABP support development of a patient-reported outcome instrument.

Difficult-to-Treat Resistance in Gram-negative Bacteremia at 173 US Hospitals: Retrospective Cohort Analysis of Prevalence, Predictors, and Outcome of Resistance to All First-line Agents.

Background: Resistance to all first-line antibiotics necessitates the use of less effective or more toxic "reserve" agents. Gram-negative bloodstream infections (GNBSIs) harboring such difficult-to-treat resistance (DTR) may have higher mortality than phenotypes that allow for ≥1 active first-line antibiotic. Methods: The Premier Database was analyzed for inpatients with select GNBSIs. DTR was defined as intermediate/resistant in vitro to all ß-lactam categories, including carbapenems and fluoroquinolones. Prevalence and aminoglycoside resistance of DTR episodes were compared with carbapenem-resistant, extended-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant, and fluoroquinolone-resistant episodes using CDC definitions. Predictors of DTR were identified. The adjusted relative risk (aRR) of mortality was examined for DTR, CDC-defined phenotypes susceptible to ≥1 first-line agent, and graded loss of active categories. Results: Between 2009-2013, 471 (1%) of 45011 GNBSI episodes at 92 (53.2%) of 173 hospitals exhibited DTR, ranging from 0.04% for Escherichia coli to 18.4% for Acinetobacter baumannii. Among patients with DTR, 79% received parenteral aminoglycosides, tigecycline, or colistin/polymyxin-B; resistance to all aminoglycosides occurred in 33%. Predictors of DTR included urban healthcare and higher baseline illness. Crude mortality for GNBSIs with DTR was 43%; aRR was higher for DTR than for carbapenem-resistant (1.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-1.4; P = .02), extended-spectrum cephalosporin-resistant (1.2; 1.1-1.4; P = .001), or fluoroquinolone-resistant (1.2; 1.0-1.4; P = .008) infections. The mortality aRR increased 20% per graded loss of active first-line categories, from 3-5 to 1-2 to 0. Conclusion: Nonsusceptibility to first-line antibiotics is associated with decreased survival in GNBSIs. DTR is a simple bedside prognostic measure of treatment-limiting coresistance.

Reliability, Validity, and Responsiveness of InFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO©) Scores in Influenza-Positive Patients.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of InFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO©) scores for quantifying the presence and severity of influenza symptoms. METHODS: An observational prospective cohort study of adults (≥18 years) with influenza-like illness in the United States, the United Kingdom, Mexico, and South America was conducted. Participants completed the 37-item draft FLU-PRO daily for up to 14 days. Item-level and factor analyses were used to remove items and determine factor structure. Reliability of the final tool was estimated using Cronbach α and intraclass correlation coefficients (2-day reliability). Convergent and known-groups validity and responsiveness were assessed using global assessments of influenza severity and return to usual health. RESULTS: Of the 536 patients enrolled, 221 influenza-positive subjects comprised the analytical sample. The mean age of the patients was 40.7 years, 60.2% were women, and 59.7% were white. The final 32-item measure has six factors/domains (nose, throat, eyes, chest/respiratory, gastrointestinal, and body/systemic), with a higher order factor representing symptom severity overall (comparative fit index = 0.92; root mean square error of approximation = 0.06). Cronbach α was high (total = 0.92; domain range = 0.71-0.87); test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, day 1-day 2) was 0.83 for total scores and 0.57 to 0.79 for domains. Day 1 FLU-PRO domain and total scores were moderately to highly correlated (≥0.30) with Patient Global Rating of Flu Severity (except nose and throat). Consistent with known-groups validity, scores differentiated severity groups on the basis of global rating (total: F = 57.2, P < 0.001; domains: F = 8.9-67.5, P < 0.001). Subjects reporting return to usual health showed significantly greater (P < 0.05) FLU-PRO score improvement by day 7 than did those who did not, suggesting score responsiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that FLU-PRO scores are reliable, valid, and responsive to change in influenza-positive adults.

Using the Influenza Patient-reported Outcome (FLU-PRO) diary to evaluate symptoms of influenza viral infection in a healthy human challenge model.

BACKGROUND: In clinical studies involving a healthy volunteer human challenge model, a valid and reliable measure to assess the evolution of patient-reported symptom type and severity following viral exposure is necessary. This study examines the use of the InFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO) diary as a standardized measure of symptom severity in a healthy volunteer human challenge model. METHODS: Healthy adults admitted to the NIH Clinical Center (Day - 1) underwent a 9-day inpatient quarantine after intranasal challenge with a wild-type influenza A/H1N1pdm virus (Day 0). Participants completed the 32-item FLU-PRO diary twice daily for 14 days to assess presence, severity, and duration of symptoms across six body systems. Secondary analyses included descriptive statistics to examine FLU-PRO scores over the course of illness and analysis of variance to compare scores on Day 3 post-challenge by presence of viral shedding, and pre-challenge hemagglutinin and neuraminidase inhibition (HAI and NAI) titers. RESULTS: All but one subject (99%), who was lost to follow-up, completed twice daily FLU-PRO diaries on all study assessment days. FLU-PRO demonstrated that 61 of 65 subjects reported symptoms (Days: Median 5, Mean 6 ± 7), of whom 37 (61%) had viral shedding. Pre-challenge, 39 (64%) and 10 (16%) subjects had low (< 1:40) HAI and NAI titers, respectively. Nose, throat, body, and gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms reached peak intensity at Day 3, followed by chest/respiratory and eye symptoms at Day 4. Subjects with viral shedding had higher mean FLU-PRO scores compared to those without, except for Eye and GI domains (p <0.05). Mean FLU-PRO scores were significantly higher for subjects with low NAI titer (p <0.05) across all domains. No significant differences were observed between HAI titer groups. FLU-PRO scores of the low HAI-low NAI group (n = 10) were significantly higher (more severe) than the other two groups (p < 0.05) (high HAI-high NAI (n = 22), low HAI-high NAI (n = 29)). CONCLUSIONS: The FLU-PRO had high adherence and low respondent burden. It can be used to track symptom onset, intensity, duration, and recovery from influenza infection in clinical research. In this human challenge study, scores were responsive to change and distinguished known clinical subgroups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01971255 First Registered October 2, 2013.

Clinician-Reported Outcome Assessments of Treatment Benefit: Report of the ISPOR Clinical Outcome Assessment Emerging Good Practices Task Force.

A clinician-reported outcome (ClinRO) assessment is a type of clinical outcome assessment (COA). ClinRO assessments, like all COAs (patient-reported, observer-reported, or performance outcome assessments), are used to 1) measure patients' health status and 2) define end points that can be interpreted as treatment benefits of medical interventions on how patients feel, function, or survive in clinical trials. Like other COAs, ClinRO assessments can be influenced by human choices, judgment, or motivation. A ClinRO assessment is conducted and reported by a trained health care professional and requires specialized professional training to evaluate the patient's health status. This is the second of two reports by the ISPOR Clinical Outcomes Assessment-Emerging Good Practices for Outcomes Research Task Force. The first report provided an overview of COAs including definitions important for an understanding of COA measurement practices. This report focuses specifically on issues related to ClinRO assessments. In this report, we define three types of ClinRO assessments (readings, ratings, and clinician global assessments) and describe emerging good measurement practices in their development and evaluation. The good measurement practices include 1) defining the context of use; 2) identifying the concept of interest measured; 3) defining the intended treatment benefit on how patients feel, function, or survive reflected by the ClinRO assessment and evaluating the relationship between that intended treatment benefit and the concept of interest; 4) documenting content validity; 5) evaluating other measurement properties once content validity is established (including intra- and inter-rater reliability); 6) defining study objectives and end point(s) objectives, and defining study end points and placing study end points within the hierarchy of end points; 7) establishing interpretability in trial results; and 8) evaluating operational considerations for the implementation of ClinRO assessments used as end points in clinical trials. Applying good measurement practices to ClinRO assessment development and evaluation will lead to more efficient and accurate measurement of treatment effects. This is important beyond regulatory approval in that it provides evidence for the uptake of new interventions into clinical practice and provides justification to payers for reimbursement on the basis of the clearly demonstrated added value of the new intervention.

A systematic approach for studying the signs and symptoms of fever in adult patients: the fever assessment tool (FAST).

BACKGROUND: Although body temperature is one of four key vital signs routinely monitored and treated in clinical practice, relatively little is known about the symptoms associated with febrile states. The purpose of this study was to assess the validity, reliability and feasibility of the Fever Assessment Tool (FAST) in an acute care research setting. METHODS: Qualitative: To assess content validity and finalize the FAST instrument, 12 adults from an inpatient medical-surgical unit at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Center participated in cognitive interviews within approximately 12 h of a febrile state (tympanic temperature ≥ 38° Celsius). Quantitative: To test reliability, validity and feasibility, 56 new adult inpatients completed the 21-item FAST. RESULTS: The cognitive interviews clarified and validated the content of the final 21-item FAST. Fifty-six patients completed the FAST from two to 133 times during routine vital sign assessment, yielding 1,699 temperature time points. Thirty-four percent of the patients (N = 19) experienced fever at one or more time points, with a total of 125 febrile time points. Kuder-Richardson 20 (KR-20) reliability of the FAST was 0.70. Four nonspecific symptom categories, Tired or Run-Down (12), Sleepy (13), Weak or Lacking Energy (11), and Thirsty (9) were among the most frequently reported symptoms in all participants. Using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE), the odds of reporting eight symptoms, Warm (4), Sweating (5), Thirsty (9), General Body Aches (10), Weak or Lacking Energy (11), Tired or Run Down (12) and Difficulty Breathing (17), were increased when patients had a fever (Fever Now), compared to the two other subgroups-patients who had a fever, but not at that particular time point, (Fever Not Now) and patients who never had a fever (Fever Never). Many, but not all, of the comparisons were significant in both groups. CONCLUSION: Results suggest the FAST is reliable, valid and easy to administer. In addition to symptoms usually associated with fever (e.g. feeling warm), symptoms such as Difficulty Breathing (17) were identified with fever. Further study in a larger, more diverse patient population is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials Number: NCT01287143 (January 2011).

Analysis of an ordinal endpoint for use in evaluating treatments for severe influenza requiring hospitalization.

Background/Aims A single best endpoint for evaluating treatments of severe influenza requiring hospitalization has not been identified. A novel six-category ordinal endpoint of patient status is being used in a randomized controlled trial (FLU-Intravenous Immunoglobulin - FLU-IVIG) of intravenous immunoglobulin. We systematically examine four factors regarding the use of this ordinal endpoint that may affect power from fitting a proportional odds model: (1) deviations from the proportional odds assumption which result in the same overall treatment effect as specified in the FLU-IVIG protocol and which result in a diminished overall treatment effect, (2) deviations from the distribution of the placebo group assumed in the FLU-IVIG design, (3) the effect of patient misclassification among the six categories, and (4) the number of categories of the ordinal endpoint. We also consider interactions between the treatment effect (i.e. factor 1) and each other factor. Methods We conducted a Monte Carlo simulation study to assess the effect of each factor. To study factor 1, we developed an algorithm for deriving distributions of the ordinal endpoint in the two treatment groups that deviated from proportional odds while maintaining the same overall treatment effect. For factor 2, we considered placebo group distributions which were more or less skewed than the one specified in the FLU-IVIG protocol by adding or subtracting a constant from the cumulative log odds. To assess factor 3, we added misclassification between adjacent pairs of categories that depend on subjective patient/clinician assessments. For factor 4, we collapsed some categories into single categories. Results Deviations from proportional odds reduced power at most from 80% to 77% given the same overall treatment effect as specified in the FLU-IVIG protocol. Misclassification and collapsing categories can reduce power by over 40 and 10 percentage points, respectively, when they affect categories with many patients and a discernible treatment effect. But collapsing categories that contain no treatment effect can raise power by over 20 percentage points. Differences in the distribution of the placebo group can raise power by over 20 percentage points or reduce power by over 40 percentage points depending on how patients are shifted to portions of the ordinal endpoint with a large treatment effect. Conclusion Provided that the overall treatment effect is maintained, deviations from proportional odds marginally reduce power. However, deviations from proportional odds can modify the effect of misclassification, the number of categories, and the distribution of the placebo group on power. In general, adjacent pairs of categories with many patients should be kept separate to help ensure that power is maintained at the pre-specified level.

Progress in the Fight Against Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria? A Review of U.S. Food and Drug Administration-Approved Antibiotics, 2010-2015.

A weak antibiotic pipeline and the increase in drug-resistant pathogens have led to calls for more new antibiotics. Eight new antibiotics were approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between January 2010 and December 2015: ceftaroline, fidaxomicin, bedaquiline, dalbavancin, tedizolid, oritavancin, ceftolozane-tazobactam, and ceftazidime-avibactam. This study evaluates the development course and pivotal trials of these antibiotics for their innovativeness, development process, documented patient outcomes, and cost. Data sources were FDA approval packages and databases (January 2010 to December 2015); the Red Book (Truven Health Analytics); Orange Book: Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (FDA); and supplementary information from company filings, press releases, and media reports. Four antibiotics were approved for acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infection. Seven had similar mechanisms of action to those of previously approved drugs. Six were initially developed by small to midsized companies, and 7 are currently marketed by 1 of 3 large companies. The drugs spent a median of 6.2 years in clinical trials (interquartile range [IQR], 5.4 to 8.8 years) and 8 months in FDA review (IQR, 7.5 to 8 months). The median number of patients enrolled in the pivotal trials was 666 (IQR, 553 to 739 patients; full range, 44 to 1005 patients), and median trial duration was 18 months (IQR, 15 to 22 months). Seven drugs were approved on the basis of pivotal trials evaluating noninferiority. One drug demonstrated superiority on an exploratory secondary end point, 2 showed decreased efficacy in patients with renal insufficiency, and 1 showed increased mortality compared with older drugs. Seven of the drugs are substantially more expensive than their trial comparators. Limitations are that future research may show benefit to patients, new drugs from older classes may show superior effectiveness in specific patient populations, and initial U.S. prices for each new antibiotic were obtained from public sources. Recently marketed antibiotics are more expensive but have been approved without evidence of clinical superiority.