Dysphagia Days as an Assessment of Clinical Treatment Outcome in Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate Dysphagia Days as a measure of symptom improvement in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis from the HEROES study. METHODS: Dysphagia Days, defined as a yes answer to the following question: During any meal today, did food go down slowly or get stuck in your throat or chest? was assessed for cendakimab vs placebo. RESULTS: A statistically significant reduction in the mean number of Dysphagia Days experienced was observed with cendakimab 360 mg vs placebo at week 16 (-4.67 vs -1.83; P = 0.0115); an even greater improvement was observed in steroid-refractory patients vs placebo (-4.48 vs -0.04; P = 0.0079). DISCUSSION: Dysphagia Days represents a relevant clinical end point to capture dysphagia-related symptoms.

Understanding side effects of therapy for myasthenia gravis and their impact on daily life.

BACKGROUND: Myasthenia gravis is a chronic, autoimmune, neuromuscular junction disorder characterized by skeletal muscle weakness. Current therapies for myasthenia gravis are associated with significant side effects. The objective of this study was to characterize the side effects, and associated health-related quality of life and treatment impacts, of traditional myasthenia gravis treatments. METHODS: This study had two phases; a Phase 1 interview and a 2-part web-based survey in Phase 2 that included brainstorming (Step 1) and rating (Step 2) exercises using group concept mapping. In Phase 1, all 14 participants reported experiencing side effects from myasthenia gravis treatments which had significant impacts on daily life. In Phase 2, 246 participants contributed to Step 1; 158 returned for Step 2. RESULTS: The brainstorming exercise produced 874 statements about side effects and their impact, which were reduced to 35 side effects and 23 impact-on-daily life statements. When rating these statements on severity, frequency, and tolerability, blood clots, infections/decreased immunity, weight gain, and diarrhea were the least tolerable and most severely rated. The most frequent and severe impacts were sleep interference and reduced physical and social activities. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these findings, there appears to be a need for better and more tolerable treatments for myasthenia gravis patients.

Development of the Flu-PRO: a patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument to evaluate symptoms of influenza.

BACKGROUND: To develop content validity of a comprehensive patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure following current best scientific methodology to standardize assessment of influenza (flu) symptoms in clinical research. METHODS: Stage I (Concept Elicitation): 1:1 telephone interviews with influenza-positive adults (≥18 years) in the US and Mexico within 7 days of diagnosis. Participants described symptom type, character, severity, and duration. Content analysis identified themes and developed the draft Flu-PRO instrument. Stage II (Cognitive Interviewing): The Flu-PRO was administered to a unique set of influenza-positive adults within 14 days of diagnosis; telephone interviews addressed completeness, respondent interpretation of items and ease of use. RESULTS: Samples: Stage I: N = 46 adults (16 US, 30 Mexico); mean (SD) age: 38 (19), 39 (14) years; % female: 56%, 73%; race: 69% White, 97% Mestizo. Stage II: N = 34 adults (12 US, 22 Mexico); age: 37 (14), 39 (11) years; % female: 50%, 50%; race: 58% White, 100% Mestizo. SYMPTOMS: Symptoms identified by >50%: coughing, weak or tired, throat symptoms, congestion, headache, weakness, sweating, chills, general discomfort, runny nose, chest (trouble breathing), difficulty sleeping, and body aches or pains. No new content was uncovered during Stage II; participants easily understood the instrument. CONCLUSIONS: Results show the 37-item Flu-PRO is a content valid measure of influenza symptoms in adults with a confirmed diagnosis of influenza. Research is underway to evaluate the suitability of the instrument for children and adolescents. This work can form the basis for future quantitative tests of reliability, validity, and responsiveness to evaluate the measurement properties of Flu-PRO for use in clinical trials and epidemiology studies.

Effects on health-related quality of life in patients treated with lurasidone for bipolar depression: results from two placebo controlled bipolar depression trials.

BACKGROUND: Depressive symptoms associated with bipolar disorder negatively impact health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The efficacy of lurasidone in reducing depressive symptoms has been previously demonstrated. The objective of this study was to examine the direct and indirect effect (mediated through improvement in depression symptoms) of lurasidone in improving patient HRQoL. METHODS: A secondary analysis of data was conducted of two 6-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials assessing the effect of lurasidone (lurasidone monotherapy [20-60 mg/day or 80-120 mg/day]; lurasidone adjunctive to lithium or valproate [20-120 mg/day]) in patients with bipolar depression. Patient HRQoL was measured using the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire Short Form (Q-LES-Q SF). Depression symptoms were measured using the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to estimate the effect of lurasidone on improvement in the Q-LES-Q SF percentage maximum score from baseline to 6 weeks. Path analysis was used to evaluate the total effect (ß1), as well as the indirect (ß2*ß3) and direct (ß4) effect of lurasidone on Q-LES-Q SF change through improvements in MADRS. RESULTS: A total of 340 and 485 patients from the monotherapy and adjunctive therapy, respectively, were included in the analysis. At 6-weeks, ANCOVA analyses demonstrated that lurasidone provided significant improvement in adjusted mean Q-LES-Q SF scores in comparison to placebo for monotherapy (22.9 and 22.7 vs. 15.2, both p < 0.01) and adjunctive therapy (23.1 vs. 17.9, p = 0.01). Path analyses indicated that lurasidone treatment predicted MADRS improvement (monotherapy: ß2 = -0.44, p < 0.001; adjunctive therapy: ß2 = -0.34, p = 0.003), which subsequently predicted improvement in Q-LES-Q SF (monotherapy: ß3 = -0.73, p < 0.001; adjunctive therapy: ß3 = -0.75, p < 0.001); however, the effect of lurasidone on improvement in Q-LES-Q SF was largely mediated by change in MADRS (monotherapy: ß4 = 0.11, p = 0.13; adjunctive therapy: ß4 = 0.02, p = 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Lurasidone as a monotherapy and adjunctive to lithium or valproate is an effective treatment for improving HRQoL in patients with bipolar depression. However, improvement in HRQoL was not independent of improvement in depression, indicating that the effect of lurasidone on improving patient HRQoL may act through a reduction in depressive symptoms associated with bipolar disorder. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: NCT00868699 and NCT00868452 (both registered March 23, 2009).

Patient Preferences for GLP-1 Receptor Agonist Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Japan: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

INTRODUCTION: The incidence and prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2D) are increasing in Japan, and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) are commonly used to treat the disease. The objective of this study was to use a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to characterize patient preferences for clinical treatment features of two GLP-1 RAs-dulaglutide 0.75 mg and semaglutide 0.50 mg-among patients with T2D in Japan. METHODS: Adult patients with T2D in Japan were administered the DCE via a web-based survey. The DCE examined patient preferences for five treatment attributes (each described by two or three levels), including method of administration, HbA1c change, reduction in cardiovascular (CV) risk, weight change, and common side effects (i.e., nausea). Results were analyzed using multinomial and mixed logit models, and predicted choice probability was calculated to determine the overall probability that either dulaglutide or semaglutide DCE levels were preferred. One DCE choice task included a direct comparison of the dulaglutide 0.75 mg versus semaglutide 0.50 mg treatment profiles. RESULTS: 190 subjects completed the survey; 29 were excluded after failing the predefined internal validity assessments. In the final analysis sample (N = 161), the attribute with the largest effect on the subjects' choices was reduction in CV risk, followed by HbA1c change and common side effects. Patients' predicted choice probability for the semaglutide profile was 78%, versus 22% for the dulaglutide profile. 28% of patients were "very willing" to initiate treatment with semaglutide's product profile, versus 6% for dulaglutide. CONCLUSION: In this study, reduction in CV risk and HbA1c change were the key drivers of GLP-1 RA medication preference in Japanese patients with T2D. Overall, the majority of the patients preferred a product with attribute levels reflecting the semaglutide 0.50 mg profile, with a known CV risk reduction benefit and superior HbA1c reduction. FUNDING: Novo Nordisk.

Evaluation of a respiratory symptom diary for clinical studies of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: There are no validated patient diaries for evaluating respiratory symptoms in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). PURPOSE: To evaluate the performance properties of the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms™ (E-RS™: COPD) measure in patients with IPF. METHODS: Concept elicitation and cognitive interviews were conducted with IPF patients to evaluate content validity, including comprehensiveness, relevance, and interpretability of E-RS™ items in this patient population. Secondary analyses of IPF clinical study data were performed to evaluate the scoring structure of the tool. With modifications, reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the instrument (E-RS™: IPF) were evaluated. RESULTS: Qualitative interviews (n = 30) were conducted. During the elicitation interviews (n = 20), concept saturation for IPF respiratory symptoms was achieved; all respiratory symptoms covered by the E-RS™ were endorsed by ≥ 30% of the sample. During cognitive interviews (n = 10), all participants found the items interpretable and relevant. Factor analyses conducted via secondary analysis of IPF clinical study data identified no total score and four symptom scales: Chest, Breathlessness, Cough, and Sputum. Reliability of each scale was high (internal consistency [α] >0.85); 2-day reproducibility (ICC >0.88). Validity was supported through significant (P < 0.0001) relationships with the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), the University of California, San Diego Shortness of Breath Questionnaire (UCSD-SOBQ), and other variables. The scales were responsive to change when evaluated using SGRQ Symptoms, UCSD-SOBQ, and Patient Global Impression of Change as anchors (P < 0.01 to P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The E-RS™: IPF is a valid, reliable, and responsive tool for evaluating respiratory symptoms in patients with IPF.

The direct and indirect effects of lurasidone monotherapy on functional improvement among patients with bipolar depression: results from a randomized placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Bipolar depression is characterized by depressive symptoms and impairment in many areas of functioning, including work, family, and social life. The objective of this study was to assess the independent, direct effect of lurasidone treatment on functioning improvement, and examine the indirect effect of lurasidone treatment on functioning improvement, mediated through improvements in depression symptoms. METHODS: Data from a 6-week placebo-controlled trial assessing the effect of lurasidone monotherapy versus placebo in patients with bipolar depression was used. Patient functioning was measured using the Sheehan disability scale (SDS). Descriptive statistics were used to assess the effect of lurasidone on improvement on the SDS total and domain scores (work/school, social, and family life), as well as number of days lost and unproductive due to symptoms. Path analyses evaluated the total effect (ß1), as well as the indirect effect (ß2×ß3) and direct effect (ß4) of lurasidone treatment on SDS total score change, using standardized beta path coefficients and baseline scores as covariates. The direct effect of treatment on SDS total score change and indirect effects accounting for mediation through depression improvement were examined for statistical significance and magnitude using MPlus. RESULTS: In this 6-week trial (N = 485), change scores from baseline to 6-weeks were significantly larger for both lurasidone treatment dosage groups versus placebo on the SDS total and all three SDS domain scores (p < 0.05). Through path analyses, lurasidone treatment predicted improvement in depression (ß2 = -0.33, p = 0.009), subsequently predicting improvement in functional impairment (ß3 = 0.70, p < 0.001; indirect effect = -0.23). The direct effect was of medium magnitude (ß4 = -0.17, p = 0.04), indicating lurasidone had a significant and direct effect on improvement in functional impairment, after accounting for depression improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Results demonstrated statistically significant improvement in functioning among patients on lurasidone monotherapy compared to placebo. Improvement in functioning among patients on lurasidone was largely mediated through a reduction in depression symptoms, but lurasidone also had a medium and statistically significant independent direct effect in improving functioning.