Gender Differences in Perceptions of Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Impact, Management, and Physician Interactions: Results from a Global Patient Survey.

INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the impact of gender on disease severity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), treatment management, and patient-healthcare professional (HCP) interactions from the perspectives of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA). METHODS: Data were collected from a global online patient survey conducted by The Harris Poll (November 2, 2017 to March 12, 2018). Eligible patients were aged ≥ 18 years, with a self-reported diagnosis of PsA for > 1 year, had visited a rheumatologist/dermatologist in the past 12 months, and had reported previously using ≥ 1 conventional synthetic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug. Data were stratified by gender and analyzed descriptively, inferentially by binomial (chi-square) tests, and by multivariate logistic regression models. RESULTS: Data from 1286 patients who participated were included: 52% were female, 48% were male. Varying perceptions of disease severity between males and females were indicated by differences in symptoms leading to a diagnosis of PsA, and in symptoms reported despite treatment; more females than males reported joint tenderness, skin patches/plaques, and enthesitis. More females than males reported a major/moderate impact of PsA on their physical activity and emotional/mental well-being. Reasons for switching medication differed between genders, with more females switching because they perceived their medication to not be effective enough related to their joint symptoms. More females than males were very satisfied with their communication with their rheumatologist and were more likely to discuss the impact of PsA on their daily lives, their treatment satisfaction, and treatment goals with their rheumatologist. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' perceptions of the impact of PsA on HRQoL, treatment management, and interactions with HCPs varied between males and females. More females than males reported major/moderate physical and emotional impacts of PsA. When treating patients, it is important for HCPs to consider the potential impact of gender on patients' experience of PsA and its symptoms. Graphical plain language summary available for this article.

A latent class analysis of factors influencing preferences for infant respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) preventives among pregnant people in the United States.

A maternal vaccine and long-acting monoclonal antibody (mAb) were recently approved to protect infants against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). We identified subgroups of pregnant people with different preferences for RSV preventives and respondent characteristics associated with subgroup membership. An online survey, including a discrete choice experiment (DCE), was conducted among US pregnant people. RSV preventive attributes included effectiveness, duration of protection during RSV season, injection recipient/timing, preventive type (vaccine or mAb), and type of visit required to receive injection. In DCE choice tasks, pregnant people selected between two hypothetical preventive profiles with varying attribute-levels and a no-preventive option. Logistic regression, including latent class analysis (LCA), was used to analyze the data. Of 992 pregnant people (mean age: 30.0 years), 60.3% were expecting their second/later birth. LCA identified three preference subgroups: 'Effectiveness' (preventive choice mostly driven by increases in effectiveness; 51.4% class membership probability), 'Season' (preventive choice mostly driven by improvement in duration of protection during the RSV season; 39.2% class membership probability), and 'No Preventive' (frequently chose no-preventive option; 9.4% class membership probability). 'Effectiveness' and 'Season' preferred maternal vaccine over mAb; mAb was preferred by 'No Preventive.' Perceiving RSV as serious for infants, higher health literacy, and lower household income were associated with 'Effectiveness.' Perceiving RSV as serious for pregnant people was associated with 'Season.' Perceiving RSV to not be serious for pregnant people and not being employed were associated with 'No Preventive.' Subgroups of pregnant people vary in preferences for RSV preventives. Most pregnant people preferred a maternal vaccine, although some may be more willing to accept alternative preventive options.

Cross-Sectional Survey of Factors Contributing to COVID-19 Testing Hesitancy Among US Adults at Risk of Severe Outcomes from COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advises testing individuals for COVID-19 after exposure or if they display symptoms. However, a deeper understanding of demographic factors associated with testing hesitancy is necessary. METHODS: A US nationwide cross-sectional survey of adults with risk factors for developing severe COVID-19 ("high-risk" individuals) was conducted from August 18-September 5, 2023. Objectives included characterizing demographics and attitudes associated with COVID-19 testing. Inverse propensity weighting was used to weight the data to accurately reflect the high-risk adult US population as reflected in IQVIA medical claims data. We describe here the weighted results modeled to characterize demographic factors driving hesitancy. RESULTS: In the weighted sample of 5019 respondents at high risk for severe COVID-19, 58.2% were female, 37.8% were ≥ 65 years old, 77.1% were White, and 13.9% had a postgraduate degree. Overall, 67% were Non-testers (who indicated that they were unlikely or unsure of their likelihood of being tested within the next 6 months); these respondents were significantly more likely than Testers (who indicated a higher probability of testing within 6 months) to be female (60.2 vs. 54.1%; odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval (CI)], 1.3 [1.1‒1.4]), aged ≥ 65 years old (41.5 vs. 30.3%; OR [95% CI] compared with ages 18‒34 years, 0.6 [0.5‒0.7]), White (82.1 vs. 66.8%; OR [95% CI], 1.4 [1.1‒1.8]), and to identify as politically conservative (40.9 vs. 18.1%; OR [95% CI], 2.6 [2.3‒2.9]). In contrast, Testers were significantly more likely than Non-testers to have previous experience with COVID-19 testing, infection, or vaccination; greater knowledge regarding COVID-19 and testing; greater healthcare engagement; and concerns about COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Older, female, White, rural-dwelling, and politically conservative high-risk adults are the most likely individuals to experience COVID-19 testing hesitancy. Understanding these demographic factors will help guide strategies to improve US testing rates.

A review and comparison of arm-based versus contrast-based network meta-analysis for binary outcomes-Understanding their differences and limitations.

Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a statistical procedure to simultaneously compare multiple interventions. Despite the added complexity of performing an NMA compared with the traditional pairwise meta-analysis, under proper assumptions the NMA can lead to more efficient estimates on the comparisons of interventions by combining and contrasting the direct and indirect evidence into a form of evidence that can be used to underpin treatment guidelines. Two broad classes of NMA methods are commonly used in practice: the contrast-based (CB-NMA) and the arm-based (AB-NMA) models. While CB-NMA only focuses on the relative effects by assuming fixed intercepts, the AB-NMA offers greater flexibility on the estimands, including both the absolute and relative effects by assuming random intercepts. A major criticism of the AB-NMA, on which we aim to elaborate in this paper, is that it does not retain randomization within trials, which may introduce bias in the estimated relative effects in some scenarios. This criticism was drawn under the implicit assumption that a given relative effect is transportable, in which case the data generating mechanism favors the inference based on CB-NMA, which models the relative effect. In this article, we aim to review, summarize, and elaborate on the underlying assumptions, similarities and differences, and also the advantages and disadvantages, between CB-NMA and AB-NMA methods. As indirect treatment comparison is susceptible to risk of bias no matter which approach is taken, it is important to consider both approaches in practice as complementary sensitivity analyses and to provide the totality of evidence from the data.

Healthcare Providers' and Pregnant People's Preferences for a Preventive to Protect Infants from Serious Illness Due to Respiratory Syncytial Virus.

We assessed the impact of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) preventive characteristics on the intentions of pregnant people and healthcare providers (HCPs) to protect infants with a maternal vaccine or monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Pregnant people and HCPs who treated pregnant people and/or infants were recruited via convenience sample from a general research panel to complete a cross-sectional, web-based survey, including a discrete choice experiment (DCE) wherein respondents chose between hypothetical RSV preventive profiles varying on five attributes (effectiveness, preventive type [maternal vaccine vs. mAb], injection recipient/timing, type of medical visit required to receive the injection, and duration of protection during RSV season) and a no-preventive option. A best-worst scaling (BWS) exercise was included to explore the impact of additional attributes on preventive preferences. Data were collected between October and November 2022. Attribute-level preference weights and relative importance (RI) were estimated. Overall, 992 pregnant people and 310 HCPs participated. A preventive (vs. none) was chosen 89.2% (pregnant people) and 96.0% (HCPs) of the time (DCE). Effectiveness was most important to preventive choice for pregnant people (RI = 48.0%) and HCPs (RI = 41.7%); all else equal, pregnant people (RI = 5.5%) and HCPs (RI = 7.2%) preferred the maternal vaccine over mAbs, although preventive type had limited influence on choice. Longer protection, protection starting at birth or the beginning of RSV season, and use for both pre-term and full-term babies were ranked highest in importance (BWS). Pregnant people and HCPs strongly preferred a preventive to protect infants against RSV (vs. none), underscoring the need to incorporate RSV preventives into routine care.

Time to improvement of pain, morning stiffness, fatigue, and disease activity in patients with ankylosing spondylitis treated with tofacitinib: a post hoc analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for treatment of ankylosing spondylitis (AS). Time to improvement in core domains of AS was estimated in tofacitinib-treated patients with AS. METHODS: This post hoc analysis used phase 3 trial data from patients with AS receiving tofacitinib 5 mg twice daily or placebo to week (W)16; all patients received open-label tofacitinib W16-48. OUTCOMES: nocturnal pain; total back pain; fatigue, spinal pain, peripheral joint pain/swelling, enthesitis, and morning stiffness (Bath AS Disease Activity Index [BASDAI] questions 1-6); BASDAI total score; AS Disease Activity Score (ASDAS). Median time to improvement events was estimated using non-parametric Kaplan-Meier models. Improvement events were defined as initial (first post-baseline observation) and continued (sustained for 2 consecutive visits) ≥ 30% and ≥ 50% improvement in back/nocturnal pain or BASDAI questions/total scores, or ASDAS improvement ≥ 1.1 and ≥ 2.0 points. RESULTS: 269 patients (tofacitinib: n = 133; placebo-to-tofacitinib: n = 136) were assessed. Median time to improvement was shorter, and more patients experienced improvements with tofacitinib vs. placebo-to-tofacitinib; differences observed from W2 (first post-baseline assessment). Median time to initial (continued) ≥ 30% pain improvement was 4 (4-8) weeks for tofacitinib vs. 24 (24) weeks for placebo-to-tofacitinib (8 [8] weeks post-switch). Median time to initial (continued) ≥ 50% improvement of pain, peripheral joint pain/swelling and enthesitis, morning stiffness, BASDAI total score, and fatigue was 8-24 (12-40) weeks with tofacitinib vs. 24-32 weeks (32 weeks-not estimable [NE]) with placebo-to-tofacitinib. Median time to initial (continued) ASDAS improvement ≥ 1.1 points was 4 (8) weeks for tofacitinib vs. 24 (24) weeks for placebo-to-tofacitinib, and NE for improvement ≥ 2.0 points with either treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in AS core domains occurred more rapidly with tofacitinib vs. placebo-to-tofacitinib. Half of tofacitinib-treated patients with AS will likely experience improvements ≥ 30% in pain and ≥ 1.1 points in ASDAS during month (M)1, ≥ 50% improvement in nocturnal pain and enthesitis by M2, and in morning stiffness by M3. Results show that initiating tofacitinib as soon as possible is associated with quicker improvements in AS core domains vs. delaying treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03502616, 11 April 2018.

Effect size varies based on calculation method and may affect interpretation of treatment effect: an illustration using randomised clinical trials in osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: To illustrate how (standardised) effect sizes (ES) vary based on calculation method and to provide considerations for improved reporting. METHODS: Data from three trials of tanezumab in subjects with osteoarthritis were analyzed. ES of tanezumab versus comparator for WOMAC Pain (outcome) was defined as least squares difference between means (mixed model for repeated measures analysis) divided by a pooled standard deviation (SD) of outcome scores. Three approaches to computing the SD were evaluated: Baseline (the pooled SD of WOMAC Pain values at baseline [pooled across treatments]); Endpoint (the pooled SD of these values at the time primary endpoints were assessed); and Median (the median pooled SD of these values based on the pooled SDs across available timepoints). Bootstrap analyses were used to compute 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: ES (95% CI) of tanezumab 2.5 mg based on Baseline, Endpoint, and Median SDs in one study were - 0.416 (- 0.796, - 0.060), - 0.195 (- 0.371, - 0.028), and - 0.196 (- 0.373, - 0.028), respectively; negative values indicate pain improvement. This pattern of ES differences (largest with Baseline SD, smallest with Endpoint SD, Median SD similar to Endpoint SD) was consistent across all studies and doses of tanezumab. CONCLUSION: Differences in ES affect interpretation of treatment effect. Therefore, we advocate clearly reporting individual elements of ES in addition to its overall calculation. This is particularly important when ES estimates are used to determine sample sizes for clinical trials, as larger ES will lead to smaller sample sizes and potentially underpowered studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02697773, NCT02709486, and NCT02528188.

Lung adenocarcinoma patients with ROS1-rearranged tumors by sex and smoking intensity.

Background: ROS1 rearrangements (ROS1+) define a distinct molecular subset of lung adenocarcinomas. ROS1 + tumors are known to occur more in never-smokers, but the frequency and outcome of ROS1 positivity by sex and smoking intensity are not clearly documented. Patients and methods: This patient cohort study included all never- (<100 cigarettes lifetime) and light- (100 cigarettes-20 pack-years) smokers, and a sample of heavy-smokers. ROS1 + rates by sex and smoking intensity were compared within and beyond our study. Survival outcomes were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Of the 571 total patients, ROS1 + was detected in 24 (4.2%): 6.4% in men and 3.0% in women; 5.1% in never-, 5.7% in light-, and 1.8% in heavy-smokers (P=0.05). Among the 209 stage IIIB-IV patients, men had much higher ROS1 + rate (11.1%) not only than women (1.7%, P=0.004) in our study, but also than men (0.4%-1.8%) in 8 published studies (Ps = 0.0019-0.0001). ROS1+ rates were similar between never- (9.3%) and light-smokers (8.1%) and significantly lower in heavy-smokers (1.2%, P=0.017), a finding confirmed by 6 published studies (Ps = 0.041-0.0001). Overall survival of ROS1 + patients were significantly better than the ROS1- (P=0.023) mainly due to targeted therapy. Among patients who exhibited resistance to crizotinib, follow-up treatment of entrectinib and lorlatinib showed remarkable survival benefits. Conclusions: The ROS1 + rates were higher in men than in women, and similar in never- and light-smokers, more pronounced in stage IIIB-IV patients. Newer-generation ALK/ROS1-targeted drugs showed efficacy in a cohort of crizotinib resistant ROS1 + patients. These results, when validated, could assist efficiently accruing ROS1 + patients.

Effectiveness of BNT162b2 BA.4/5 Bivalent COVID-19 Vaccine against Long COVID Symptoms: A US Nationwide Study.

BACKGROUND: Long COVID has become a central public health concern. This study characterized the effectiveness of BNT162b2 BA.4/5 bivalent COVID-19 vaccine (bivalent) against long COVID symptoms. METHODS: Symptomatic US adult outpatients testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 were recruited between 2 March and 18 May 2023. Symptoms were assessed longitudinally using a CDC-based symptom questionnaire at Week 4, Month 3, and Month 6 following infection. The odds ratio (OR) of long COVID between vaccination groups was assessed by using mixed-effects logistic models, adjusting for multiple covariates. RESULTS: At Week 4, among 505 participants, 260 (51%) were vaccinated with bivalent and 245 (49%) were unvaccinated. Mean age was 46.3 years, 70.7% were female, 25.1% had ≥1 comorbidity, 43.0% prior infection, 23.0% reported Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir use. At Month 6, the bivalent cohort had 41% lower risk of long COVID with ≥3 symptoms (OR: 0.59, 95% CI, 0.36-0.96, p = 0.034) and 37% lower risk of ≥2 symptoms (OR: 0.63, 95% CI, 0.41-0.96, p = 0.030). The bivalent cohort reported fewer and less durable symptoms throughout the six-month follow-up, driven by neurologic and general symptoms, especially fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with unvaccinated participants, participants vaccinated with the bivalent were associated with approximately 40% lower risk of long COVID and less symptom burden over the six-month study duration.

From Qualitative Research to Quantitative Preference Elicitation: An Example in Invasive Meningococcal Disease.

BACKGROUND: Qualitative research is fundamental for designing discrete choice experiments (DCEs) but is often underreported in the preference literature. We developed a DCE to elicit preferences for vaccination against invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) among adolescents and young people (AYP) and parents and legal guardians (PLG) in the United States. This article reports the targeted literature review and qualitative interviews that informed the DCE design and demonstrates how to apply the recent reporting guidelines for qualitative developmental work in preference studies. METHODS: This study included two parts: a targeted literature review and qualitative interviews. The Medline and Embase databases were searched for quantitative and qualitative studies on IMD and immunization. The results of the targeted literature review informed a qualitative interview guide. Sixty-minute, online, semi-structured interviews with AYP and PLG were used to identify themes related to willingness to be vaccinated against IMD. Participants were recruited through a third-party recruiter's database and commercial online panels. Interviews included vignettes about IMD and vaccinations and three thresholding exercises examining the effect of incidence rate, disability rate, and fatality rate on vaccination preferences. Participant responses related to the themes were counted. RESULTS: The targeted literature review identified 31 concepts that were synthesized into six topics for the qualitative interviews. Twenty AYP aged 16-23 years and 20 PLG of adolescents aged 11-17 years were interviewed. Four themes related to willingness to be vaccinated emerged: attitudes towards vaccination, knowledge and information, perception of IMD, and vaccine attributes. Most participants were concerned about IMD (AYP 60%; PLG 85%) and had positive views of vaccination (AYP 80%; PLG 60%). Ninety percent of AYP and 75% of PLG always chose vaccination over no vaccination, independent of IMD incidence rate, disability rate, or fatality rate. CONCLUSION: Willingness to be vaccinated against IMD was affected by vaccine attributes but largely insensitive to IMD incidence and severity. This article provides an example of how to apply the recent reporting guidelines for qualitative developmental work in preference studies, with 21 out of 22 items in the guidelines being considered.

A matching-adjusted indirect comparison of the efficacy of elranatamab versus teclistamab in patients with triple-class exposed/refractory multiple myeloma.

For patients with triple-class exposed/refractory multiple myeloma (TCE/RMM), where effective treatments options are limited, B-cell maturation antigen and CD3-directed bispecific antibodies offer a promising new approach. Teclistamab gained conditional approval in Europe and accelerated Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval based on the MajesTEC-1 trial (NCT03145181). Elranatamab, approved by the FDA demonstrated its safety and efficacy in the MagnetisMM-3 trial (NCT04649359). Given the absence of head-to-head trials, an unanchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was conducted to assess their relative efficacy. Key baseline characteristics were adjusted to be comparable between the two trials. In the MAIC, elranatamab demonstrated significantly better objective response rate and progression-free survival (PFS) than teclistamab, and numerically better complete response, duration of response, and overall survival (OS). These results suggest that elranatamab is an efficacious option for treating patients with TCE/R MM.

A comprehensive review and shiny application on the matching-adjusted indirect comparison.

Population-adjusted indirect comparison (PAIC) is an increasingly used technique for estimating the comparative effectiveness of different treatments for the health technology assessments when head-to-head trials are unavailable. Three commonly used PAIC methods include matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), simulated treatment comparison (STC), and multilevel network meta-regression (ML-NMR). MAIC enables researchers to achieve balanced covariate distribution across two independent trials when individual participant data are only available in one trial. In this article, we provide a comprehensive review of the MAIC methods, including their theoretical derivation, implicit assumptions, and connection to calibration estimation in survey sampling. We discuss the nuances between anchored and unanchored MAIC, as well as their required assumptions. Furthermore, we implement various MAIC methods in a user-friendly R Shiny application Shiny-MAIC. To our knowledge, it is the first Shiny application that implements various MAIC methods. The Shiny-MAIC application offers choice between anchored or unanchored MAIC, choice among different types of covariates and outcomes, and two variance estimators including bootstrap and robust standard errors. An example with simulated data is provided to demonstrate the utility of the Shiny-MAIC application, enabling a user-friendly approach conducting MAIC for healthcare decision-making. The Shiny-MAIC is freely available through the link: https://ziren.shinyapps.io/Shiny_MAIC/.

Adult, adolescent, and caregiver preferences for attributes of topical treatments for mild-to-moderate atopic dermatitis: a discrete-choice experiment.

Purpose: Topical treatments for mild-to-moderate (MM) atopic dermatitis (AD) include emollients, corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, a Janus kinase inhibitor, and a phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, which differ in multiple ways. This study aimed to quantify the conditional relative importance (CRI) of attributes of topical treatments for MM AD among adult and adolescent patients and caregivers of children with MM AD.Materials and methods: A discrete-choice experiment (DCE) survey was administered to US adults and adolescents with MM AD and caregivers of children with MM AD. Each choice task comprised 2 hypothetical topical treatments characterized by efficacy, adverse events, vehicle, and application frequency. Data were analyzed using a random-parameters logit model to calculate the CRI of each attribute.Results and conclusions: 300 adults, 331 adolescents, and 330 caregivers completed the DCE. Avoiding changes in skin color (CRI 29.0) and time until itch improves (26.6) were most important to adults, followed by time until clear/almost clear skin (17.8). Application frequency (3.0) did not have a statistically significant impact on adults' choices. Adolescents were less concerned about changes in skin color than adults or caregivers; caregivers were less concerned about time until clear/almost clear skin than patients. Physicians should consider age-relevant aspects of preferences in treatment discussions with patients and caregivers.

Patient experience and unmet needs in high-risk nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer: Insights from qualitative interviews and a cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate patient experience, unmet needs, and burden among patients with high-risk nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer (HR-NMIBC) treated with Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG). METHODS: This cross-sectional study included HR-NMIBC patients who received BCG treatment in the past 3 years. The study, preceded by a focused literature review, was conducted in 2 phases: 1) qualitative interviews with 32 patients in the United States (US), France, Germany, and United Kingdom (UK) and 2) quantitative survey of 150 patients in the US. Both phases of the study assessed patient characteristics, treatment history, experience, and perceptions, as well as side effects, pain, discomfort, and time burden associated with BCG treatment. The quantitative survey included additional items related to BCG treatment satisfaction, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), productivity, and healthcare resource utilization. Descriptive statistics and bivariate subgroup comparisons were reported. RESULTS: All patients in both study phases received transurethral resection of the bladder tumor (TURBT). Nearly all patients reported keeping their bladder/avoiding radical cystectomy (RC) was important (99%). Results from the quantitative survey reported a substantial impact to cancer-specific HRQoL of patients, with lower mean scores on physical (64.7), social (62.8), and role functioning (56.7) as measured by the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-30). Most patients (69%) were satisfied overall with BCG treatment, although satisfaction declined with increased number of side effects, higher numbers of BCG administrations, and greater discomfort (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Most HR-NMIBC patients were satisfied overall with BCG treatment. Approximately half of the patients had stopped BCG treatment, notably, most during the induction phase, suggesting nonadherence to guidelines which recommend maintenance treatment after induction. Future treatments should focus on delaying or avoiding recurrence and cystectomy while reducing patient discomfort and discontinuation prior to completing the recommended course of treatment.

Appropriateness of conducting and reporting random-effects meta-analysis in oncology.

A random-effects model is often applied in meta-analysis when considerable heterogeneity among studies is observed due to the differences in patient characteristics, timeframe, treatment regimens, and other study characteristics. Since 2014, the journals Research Synthesis Methods and the Annals of Internal Medicine have published a few noteworthy papers that explained why the most widely used method for pooling heterogeneous studies-the DerSimonian-Laird (DL) estimator-can produce biased estimates with falsely high precision and recommended to use other several alternative methods. Nevertheless, more than half of studies (55.7%) published in top oncology-specific journals during 2015-2022 did not report any detailed method in the random-effects meta-analysis. Of the studies that did report the methodology used, the DL method was still the dominant one reported. Thus, while the authors recommend that Research Synthesis Methods and the Annals of Internal Medicine continue to increase the publication of its articles that report on specific methods for handling heterogeneity and use random-effects estimates that provide more accurate confidence limits than the DL estimator, other journals that publish meta-analyses in oncology (and presumably in other disease areas) are urged to do the same on a much larger scale than currently documented.

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Patients with Ulcerative Colitis: Results from a Global Ulcerative Colitis Narrative Patient Survey.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic created challenges related to disease management of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). METHODS: The UC Narrative COVID-19 survey was conducted from August to December 2021 among adults with UC from the United States, Canada, Japan, France, and Finland. Patients were questioned on disease management, health care access and experience, and preferences for interactions with their doctor. Data were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: In total, 584 patients qualified for and completed the survey. Compared with 2019, 25% experienced more flares during the pandemic (from early 2020). Most patients (88%) taking prescription medication were very/somewhat satisfied with their current treatment plan; 53% were hesitant to make changes during the pandemic. Factors that patients agreed helped control UC symptoms during the pandemic included fewer social outings (37%), working from home (29%), and less busy schedules (28%). Greater anxiety/stress (43%) and hesitancy to visit a hospital/office (34%) made the control of UC symptoms more difficult. Compared with 2019, more patients relied on certain alternative support systems during the pandemic. Patients who used in-person and virtual appointments were equally very satisfied/satisfied with the quality of care (both 81%). In-person appointments were preferred by 68% of patients when meeting a new doctor, 55% when experiencing a flare, and 52% for regular check-ups; 41% preferred virtual appointments for UC prescription refills. CONCLUSION: During the pandemic, most patients were satisfied with their current UC treatment plan and access to care; more patients relied on certain alternative UC management support systems, and many were impacted by anxiety/stress.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic created challenges for patients with ulcerative colitis. These challenges included managing symptoms, lifestyle changes, and access to health care. We asked patients with ulcerative colitis to answer questions about their experience during the pandemic to try to understand how the pandemic was affecting them. A total of 584 patients from the United States, Canada, Japan, France, and Finland took part. Patients were asked questions online. We asked them about their disease activity during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with before the pandemic and how their disease was managed, their access to health care, and their experience during the pandemic. We also asked them about their satisfaction with the types of appointments they had during the pandemic (for example, in-person or virtual meetings), and their interactions and preference for interactions with their doctors. We found that most patients were satisfied with their current treatment plan, their access to health care, and the quality of the care they received. However, many patients experienced greater stress or anxiety, and there was a negative impact on their emotional well-being. During the pandemic, more patients relied on alternative support systems such as online patient portals or virtual appointments, but patients preferred in-person appointments with their doctors in most cases except for refilling prescriptions. This information may help doctors understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with ulcerative colitis, and may help doctors and patients develop treatment plans that include both in-person and virtual appointments.

A matching-adjusted indirect comparison of the efficacy of elranatamab versus physician's choice of treatment in patients with triple-class exposed/refractory multiple myeloma.

INTRODUCTION: For patients with triple-class exposed/refractory multiple myeloma (TCE/R MM), prognosis is poor and effective treatment options are limited. Elranatamab is a novel B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA)- and CD3-directed bispecific antibody which was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in August 2023 and demonstrated safety and efficacy in patients with TCE/R MM in the phase 2, single-arm MagnetisMM-3 trial (NCT04649359). To compare the effectiveness of elranatamab vs physician's choice of treatment (PCT) in the absence of head-to-head comparative data, a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was conducted. METHODS: Individual patient data from MagnetisMM-3 (Cohort A [BCMA-naïve] N = 123, 14.7 months of follow-up) were reweighted to match published summary data from two real-world studies of PCT in patients with TCE/R MM (LocoMMotion and MAMMOTH) using a propensity score-type logistic regression. Unanchored MAIC analyses were conducted according to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Decision Support Unit (DSU) 18 guidance. RESULTS: Compared with PCT in LocoMMotion, elranatamab was associated with a significantly higher objective response rate (ORR rate difference: 37.52; 95% CI 26.20-48.83; odds ratio: 4.85; 95% CI 2.85-8.23) and complete or stringent complete response rate (≥CR rate difference: 42.29; 95% CI 31.84-52.74; odds ratio: 184.01; 95% CI 24.66-1372.86), longer progression-free survival (PFS HR 0.32; 95% CI 0.20-0.49), and overall survival (OS HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.40-0.94). Compared with PCT in MAMMOTH, elranatamab was associated with significantly higher ORR (rate difference: 28.14; 95% CI 16.77-39.52; odds ratio: 3.24; 95% CI 1.98-5.32) and ≥ CR (rate difference: 26.22; 95% CI 16.40-36.05; odds ratio: 5.48; 95% CI 2.88-10.44), as well as longer PFS (HR 0.25; 95% CI 0.17-0.37) and OS (HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.33-0.71). Sensitivity analysis results were consistent with the base case. CONCLUSION: In the MAIC, elranatamab was consistently associated with improved rates and depth of response and significantly longer PFS and OS versus PCT in LocoMMotion and MAMMOTH.

Measures of functional status in older patients treated with palbociclib for advanced breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Limited data are available on the effects of treatment for advanced breast cancer (ABC) in older patients because this population has limited enrollment in clinical trials. Data generated from the prospective, noninterventional POLARIS study of patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative ABC may help bridge the gap in our understanding of the tolerability and outcomes in this vulnerable population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated measures of geriatric impairments and activities of daily living in patients with ABC aged ≥70 years in POLARIS to evaluate the change within six months of palbociclib initiation. Geriatric impairments and activities of daily living (functional) status were assessed using the Geriatric 8 (G8) and Activities of Daily Living (ADL) screening tools. The G8, ADL, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) scores were assessed at baseline and month six through end of treatment with palbociclib. ECOG PS scores were also stratified by G8 and ADL score severity subgroups (G8: ≤14 = impaired subgroup; >14 = not at all impaired subgroup; ADL: <18 = dependent subgroup, 18 = independent subgroup). RESULTS: At data cutoff in November 2020, of 1282 POLARIS patients of all ages, 287 (22.4%) were ≥ 70 years old and completed ≥6 months of palbociclib therapy. At baseline, 117 (45%; n = 260) of these patients had an ECOG PS score of 0, 143 (55%; n = 260) had ECOG PS score > 0, 248 (86%) had G8 scores (mean [SD] 13.6 [2.14]), and 256 (89%) had ADL scores (17.7 [1.03]) among the available 287 patients. At six months, 102 (40%; n = 255) had an ECOG PS score of 0, 153 (60%; n = 255) had ECOG PS score > 0, 198 (69%) had G8 scores (13.6 [1.99]), and 211 (74%) had ADL scores (17.6 [1.22]) among the 287 available patients. There was no mean change (standard deviation) from baseline to 6 months in mean ECOG PS scores (0.0 [0.61], P = 0.24), G8 scores (0.0 [2.17], P = 0.89), or ADL scores (0.0 [1.00], P = 0.62). DISCUSSION: In this subgroup analysis of older patients with ABC from POLARIS, functional status and impairment outcomes were preserved in older patients receiving palbociclib. G8, ADL, and ECOG PS scores were generally maintained during the first six months of palbociclib therapy. CLINICALTRIALS: govidentification number. NCT03280303.

Double-Negative Results Matter: A Reevaluation of Sensitivities for Detecting SARS-CoV-2 Infection Using Saliva Versus Nasopharyngeal Swabs.

In a recent systematic review, Bastos et al. (Ann Intern Med. 2021;174(4):501-510) compared the sensitivities of saliva sampling and nasopharyngeal swabs in the detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection by assuming a composite reference standard defined as positive if either test is positive and negative if both tests are negative (double negative). Even under a perfect specificity assumption, this approach ignores the double-negative results and risks overestimating the sensitivities due to residual misclassification. In this article, we first illustrate the impact of double-negative results in the estimation of the sensitivities in a single study, and then propose a 2-step latent class meta-analysis method for reevaluating both sensitivities using the same published data set as that used in Bastos et al. by properly including the observed double-negative results. We also conduct extensive simulation studies to compare the performance of the proposed method with Bastos et al.'s method for varied levels of prevalence and between-study heterogeneity. The results demonstrate that the sensitivities are overestimated noticeably using Bastos et al.'s method, and the proposed method provides a more accurate evaluation with nearly no bias and close-to-nominal coverage probability. In conclusion, double-negative results can significantly impact the estimated sensitivities when a gold standard is absent, and thus they should be properly incorporated.