Assessing patient PREFERence between the dulaglutide pen and the semaglutide pen: A crossover study (PREFER).

AIM: When selecting treatments for type 2 diabetes (T2D), it is important to consider not only efficacy and safety, but also other treatment attributes that have an impact on patient preference. The objective of this study was to examine preference between injection devices used for two weekly GLP-1 receptor agonists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The PREFER study was an open-label, multicentre, randomized, crossover study assessing patient preference for dulaglutide and semaglutide injection devices among injection-naïve patients receiving oral medication for type 2 diabetes. After being trained to use each device, participants performed all steps of injection preparation and administered mock injections into an injection pad. Time-to-train (TTT) for each device was assessed in a subset. RESULTS: There were 310 evaluable participants (48.4% female; mean age, 60.0 years; 78 participants in the TTT subgroup). More participants preferred the dulaglutide device than the semaglutide device (84.2% vs. 12.3%; P < 0.0001). More participants perceived the dulaglutide device to have greater ease of use (86.8% vs. 6.8%; P < 0.0001). After preparing and using the devices, more participants were willing to use the dulaglutide device (93.5%) than the semaglutide device (45.8%). Training participants to use the dulaglutide device required less time than the semaglutide device (3.38 vs. 8.14 minutes; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Participants with type 2 diabetes preferred the dulaglutide injection device to the semaglutide injection device. If patients prefer a device, they may be more willing to use the medication, which could result in better health outcomes. Furthermore, a shorter training time for injection devices may be helpful in busy clinical practice settings.

A New Approach for Identifying Patients with Undiagnosed Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

RATIONALE: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is often unrecognized and untreated. OBJECTIVES: To develop a method for identifying undiagnosed COPD requiring treatment with currently available therapies (FEV1 <60% predicted and/or exacerbation risk). METHODS: We conducted a multisite, cross-sectional, case-control study in U.S. pulmonary and primary care clinics that recruited subjects from primary care settings. Cases were patients with COPD and at least one exacerbation in the past year or FEV1 less than 60% of predicted without exacerbation in the past year. Control subjects were persons with no COPD or with mild COPD (FEV1 ≥60% predicted, no exacerbation in the past year). In random forests analyses, we identified the smallest set of questions plus peak expiratory flow (PEF) with optimal sensitivity (SN) and specificity (SP). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: PEF and spirometry were recorded in 186 cases and 160 control subjects. The mean (SD) age of the sample population was 62.7 (10.1) years; 55% were female; 86% were white; and 16% had never smoked. The mean FEV1 percent predicted for cases was 42.5% (14.2%); for control subjects, it was 82.5% (15.7%). A five-item questionnaire, CAPTURE (COPD Assessment in Primary Care to Identify Undiagnosed Respiratory Disease and Exacerbation Risk), was used to assess exposure, breathing problems, tiring easily, and acute respiratory illnesses. CAPTURE exhibited an SN of 95.7% and an SP of 44.4% for differentiating cases from all control subjects, and an SN of 95.7% and an SP of 67.8% for differentiating cases from no-COPD control subjects. The PEF (males, <350 L/min; females, <250 L/min) SN and SP were 88.0% and 77.5%, respectively, for differentiating cases from all control subjects, and they were 88.0% and 90.8%, respectively, for distinguishing cases from no-COPD control subjects. The CAPTURE plus PEF exhibited improved SN and SP for all cases versus all control subjects (89.7% and 78.1%, respectively) and for all cases versus no-COPD control subjects (89.7% and 93.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: CAPTURE with PEF can identify patients with COPD who would benefit from currently available therapy and require further diagnostic evaluation. Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01880177).

The Fatigue Associated with Depression Questionnaire (FAsD): responsiveness and responder definition.

PURPOSE: The Fatigue Associated with Depression Questionnaire (FAsD) was developed to assess fatigue and its impact among patients with depression. The purpose of this study was to examine the questionnaire's responsiveness to change and identify a responder definition for interpretation of treatment-related changes. METHODS: Data were collected at baseline and at 6 weeks from patients with depression starting treatment with a new antidepressant. RESULTS: Of the 96 participants, 55.2% were women, with a mean age of 43.4 years. The total score and both subscales demonstrated statistically significant change with moderate to large effect sizes (absolute values ≥ 0.76). FAsD change scores were significantly correlated with change on the Brief Fatigue Inventory (r ≥ 0.73; p < 0.001). FAsD mean change scores discriminated among patient subgroups differing by degree of improvement in patient- and clinician-reported fatigue and depression. Responder definition for the two subscales and total score (0.67, 0.57, 0.62) was estimated primarily based on mean change among patients who reported a small but important improvement in fatigue. DISCUSSION: The FAsD was responsive to change, and the responder definition may be used when interpreting treatment-related change. Results add to previous findings suggesting the FAsD is a useful measure of fatigue among patients with depression.

Health state utilities associated with weight loss in type 2 diabetes and obesity.

INTRODUCTION: Health state utilities associated with weight change are needed as inputs for cost-utility analyses (CUAs) examining the value of treatments for obesity and type 2 diabetes (T2D). Although some pharmaceutical treatments currently in development are associated with substantial weight loss, little is known about the utility impact of weight decreases greater than 10%. The purpose of this study was to estimate utilities associated with body weight decreases up to 20% based on preferences of individuals with obesity, with and without T2D. METHODS: Health state vignettes were developed to represent respondents' own current weight and weight decreases of 2.5, 5, 10, 15, and 20%. Health state utilities were elicited in time trade-off interviews in two UK locations (Edinburgh and London) with a sample of participants with obesity, with and without T2D. Mean utility increases associated with each amount of weight decrease were calculated. Regression analyses were performed to derive a method for estimating utility change associated with weight decreases. RESULTS: Analyses were conducted with data from 405 individuals with obesity (202 with T2D, 203 without T2D). Utility increases associated with various levels of weight decrease ranged from 0.011 to 0.060 in the subgroup with T2D and 0.015 to 0.077 in the subgroup without T2D. All regression models found that the percentage of weight decrease was a highly significant predictor of change in utility (p < .0001). The relationship between weight change and utility change did not appear to be linear. Equations are recommended for estimating utility change based on the natural logarithm of percentage of weight decrease. DISCUSSION: Results of this study may be used to provide inputs for CUAs examining and comparing the value of treatments that are associated with substantial amounts of weight loss in patients with obesity, with or without T2D.

Derivation and validation of the ASK-12 adherence barrier survey.

BACKGROUND: The ASK-20 survey is a previously validated patient-report measure of barriers to medication adherence and adherence-related behavior. OBJECTIVE: To derive and validate a shorter version of the ASK-20 scale. METHODS: Patients with asthma, diabetes, and congestive heart failure were recruited from a university medical center. Participants completed the ASK-20 survey and other questionnaires. Approximately one-third of participants were randomized to a 2-week retest administration. Item performance and results of an exploratory factor analysis were examined for item reduction and subscale identification. Subsequent analyses examined reliability and validity of the shorter version of the ASK. RESULTS: A total of 112 patients participated (75.9% female; mean age 46.7 y; 53.6% African American). Eight items were dropped from the ASK-20 based on factor loadings, floor effects, Cronbach's alpha, and the ability of each item to discriminate between groups of patients differing in self-reported adherence. The new total score (ASK-12) had good internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha 0.75) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation 0.79). Convergent validity was demonstrated through correlations with the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (r -0.74; p < 0.001), condition-specific measures, the SF-12 Mental Component Score (r -0.32; p < 0.01), and proportion of days covered by filled medication prescriptions in the past 6 months as indicated by pharmacy claims data (r -0.20; p = 0.059). The ASK-12 total score also discriminated among groups of patients who differed in self-reported adherence indicators, including whether a dose was missed in the past week, the number of days medication was not taken as directed, and treatment satisfaction. Three subscales were identified (adherence behavior, health beliefs, inconvenience/forgetfulness), and results provided initial support for their validity. CONCLUSIONS: The ASK-12 demonstrated adequate reliability and validity, and it may be a useful brief measure of adherence behavior and barriers to treatment adherence.

Can CAPTURE be used to identify undiagnosed patients with mild-to-moderate COPD likely to benefit from treatment?

Background: COPD Assessment in Primary Care To Identify Undiagnosed Respiratory Disease and Exacerbation Risk (CAPTURE™) uses five questions and peak expiratory flow (PEF) thresholds (males ≤350 L/min; females ≤250 L/min) to identify patients with a forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1)/forced vital capacity (FVC) <0.70 and FEV1 <60% predicted or exacerbation risk requiring further evaluation for COPD. This study tested CAPTURE's ability to identify symptomatic patients with mild-to-moderate COPD (FEV1 60%-80% predicted) who may also benefit from diagnosis and treatment. Methods: Data from the CAPTURE development study were used to test its sensitivity (SN) and specificity (SP) differentiating mild-to-moderate COPD (n=73) from no COPD (n=87). SN and SP for differentiating all COPD cases (mild to severe; n=259) from those without COPD (n=87) were also estimated. The modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea scale and COPD Assessment Test (CAT™) were used to evaluate symptoms and health status. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01880177, https://ClinicalTrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01880177?term=NCT01880177&rank=1. Results: Mean age (+SD): 61 (+10.5) years; 41% male. COPD: FEV1/FVC=0.60 (+0.1), FEV1% predicted=74% (+12.4). SN and SP for differentiating mild-to-moderate and non-COPD patients (n=160): Questionnaire: 83.6%, 67.8%; PEF (≤450 L/min; ≤350 L/min): 83.6%, 66.7%; CAPTURE (Questionnaire+PEF): 71.2%, 83.9%. COPD patients whose CAPTURE results suggested that diagnostic evaluation was warranted (n=52) were more likely to be symptomatic than patients whose results did not (n=21) (mMRC >2: 37% vs 5%, p<0.01; CAT>10: 86% vs 57%, p<0.01). CAPTURE differentiated COPD from no COPD (n=346): SN: 88.0%, SP: 83.9%. Conclusion: CAPTURE (450/350) may be useful for identifying symptomatic patients with mild-to-moderate airflow obstruction in need of diagnostic evaluation for COPD.

How Well Does CAPTURE Translate?: An Exploratory Analysis of a COPD Case-Finding Method for Spanish-Speaking Patients.

BACKGROUND: This study tested the properties of a Spanish translation of CAPTURE (COPD Assessment in Primary Care To Identify Undiagnosed Respiratory Disease and Exacerbation Risk) with selective use of peak expiratory flow (PEF). METHODS: This study comprised analyses of data from the Spanish-speaking cohort of the cross-sectional, case-control study used to develop CAPTURE. Translation procedures included forward and backward translation, reconciliation, and cognitive interviewing to assure linguistic and cultural equivalence, yielding CAPTURE-S. Spanish-speaking participants were recruited through one center and designated as case subjects (clinically significant COPD: FEV1 ≤ 60% predicted and/or at risk of COPD exacerbation) or control subjects (no or mild COPD). Subjects completed a questionnaire booklet that included 44 candidate items, the COPD Assessment Test (CAT), and the modified Medical Research Council (mMRC) dyspnea question. PEF and spirometry were also performed. RESULTS: The study included 30 participants (17 case subjects and 13 control subjects). Their mean (± SD) age was 62.6 (11.49) years, and 33% were male. CAPTURE-S scores were significantly correlated with PEF (r = -0.78), the FEV1/FVC ratio (r = -0.74), FEV1 (r = -0.69), FEV1 % predicted (r = -0.69), the CAT score (r = 0.70), and the mMRC dyspnea question (r = 0.59) (P < .0001), with significantly higher scores in case subjects than in control subjects (t = 6.16; P < .0001). PEF significantly correlated with FEV1 (r = 0.89), FEV1 % predicted (r = 0.79), and the FEV1/FVC ratio (r = 0.75) (P < .0001), with significantly lower PEF in case subjects than in control subjects (t = 5.08; P < .0001). CAPTURE-S score + PEF differentiated case subjects and control subjects with a sensitivity of 88.2% and a specificity of 92.3%. CONCLUSIONS: CAPTURE-S with selective use of PEF seems to be useful for identifying Spanish-speaking patients in need of diagnostic evaluation for clinically significant COPD who may benefit from initiation of COPD treatment. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT01880177; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Validation of Claims Algorithms for Progression to Metastatic Cancer in Patients with Breast, Non-small Cell Lung, and Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Validated algorithms for identifying progression to metastatic cancer could permit the use of administrative claims databases for research in this area. OBJECTIVE: To identify simple algorithms that could accurately detect cancer progression to metastatic breast, non-small cell lung, and colorectal cancer (CRC) using medical and pharmacy claims data. METHODS: Adults with stage I-III breast, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), or CRC in the Geisinger Health System from 2004 to 2011 were selected. Evidence of progression was extracted via manual chart review as the reference standard. In addition to secondary malignancy diagnosis (ICD-9 code for metastases), diagnoses, procedures, and treatments were selected with clinician input as indicators of cancer progression. Random forests models provided variable importance scores. In addition to codes for secondary malignancy, several more complex algorithms were constructed and performance measures calculated. RESULTS: Among those with breast cancer [17/502 (3.4%) progressed], the performance of a secondary malignancy code was suboptimal [sensitivity: 64.7%; specificity: 86.0%; positive predictive value (PPV): 13.9; negative predictive value (NPV): 98.6%]; requiring malignancy at another site or initiation of immunotherapy increased PPV and specificity but decreased sensitivity. For NSCLC [61/236 (25.8%) progressed], codes for secondary malignancy alone (PPV: 47.4%; NPV: 84.8%; sensitivity: 60.7%; specificity: 76.6%) performed similarly or better than more complex algorithms. For CRC [33/276 (12.0%) progressed], secondary malignancy codes had good specificity (92.7%) and NPV (92.3%) but low sensitivity (42.4%) and PPV (43.8%); an algorithm with change in chemotherapy increased sensitivity but decreased other metrics. CONCLUSION: Selected algorithms performed similarly to the presence of a secondary tumor diagnosis code, with low sensitivity/PPV and higher specificity/NPV. Accurate identification of cancer progression likely requires verification through chart review.

Insight into Best Variables for COPD Case Identification: A Random Forests Analysis.

RATIONALE: This study is part of a larger, multi-method project to develop a questionnaire for identifying undiagnosed cases of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in primary care settings, with specific interest in the detection of patients with moderate to severe airway obstruction or risk of exacerbation. OBJECTIVES: To examine 3 existing datasets for insight into key features of COPD that could be useful in the identification of undiagnosed COPD. METHODS: Random forests analyses were applied to the following databases: COPD Foundation Peak Flow Study Cohort (N=5761), Burden of Obstructive Lung Disease (BOLD) Kentucky site (N=508), and COPDGene® (N=10,214). Four scenarios were examined to find the best, smallest sets of variables that distinguished cases and controls:(1) moderate to severe COPD (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1] <50% predicted) versus no COPD; (2) undiagnosed versus diagnosed COPD; (3) COPD with and without exacerbation history; and (4) clinically significant COPD (FEV1<60% predicted or history of acute exacerbation) versus all others. RESULTS: From 4 to 8 variables were able to differentiate cases from controls, with sensitivity ≥73 (range: 73-90) and specificity >68 (range: 68-93). Across scenarios, the best models included age, smoking status or history, symptoms (cough, wheeze, phlegm), general or breathing-related activity limitation, episodes of acute bronchitis, and/or missed work days and non-work activities due to breathing or health. CONCLUSIONS: Results provide insight into variables that should be considered during the development of candidate items for a new questionnaire to identify undiagnosed cases of clinically significant COPD.

Validation of a clinician questionnaire to assess reasons for antipsychotic discontinuation and continuation among patients with schizophrenia.

The Reasons for Antipsychotic Discontinuation Questionnaire (RAD-Q) was designed to assess clinicians' perceptions of reasons for antipsychotic discontinuation or continuation. The current study examined psychometric properties of this instrument and patterns of antipsychotic discontinuation. The sample of 121 patients (81 discontinuation, 40 continuation) with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder was 66.9% male, with a mean age of 41.6 years. Treating clinicians reported a mean of 4.1 reasons for discontinuation and 7.5 reasons for continuation. RAD-Q domain scores were derived to quantify the impact of three factors on the decision to discontinue or continue: treatment benefits, adverse events, and distal reasons other than direct effects of the medication. Analysis of inter-rater reliability indicated an acceptable degree of agreement between clinicians (weighted Kappa for discontinuation scores=0.70-0.78). Correlations with symptom measures (Clinical Global Impression-Schizophrenia Scale (CGI-SCH), Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS)) supported convergent validity of the benefits domain score (r=0.28-0.47; all p<0.05). Domain scores discriminated among groups of patients differing in clinician and patient-reported clinical variables. Results suggest that the RAD-Q is a useful detailed measure of reasons for antipsychotic discontinuation and continuation. Findings indicate that clinicians usually report multiple reasons for discontinuation, rather than a single reason for each patient.

Validation of a patient interview for assessing reasons for antipsychotic discontinuation and continuation.

INTRODUCTION: The Reasons for Antipsychotic Discontinuation Interview (RAD-I) was developed to assess patients' perceptions of reasons for discontinuing or continuing an antipsychotic. The current study examined reliability and validity of domain scores representing three factors contributing to these treatment decisions: treatment benefits, adverse events, and distal reasons other than direct effects of the medication. METHODS: Data were collected from patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and their treating clinicians. For approximately 25% of patients, a second rater completed the RAD-I for assessment of inter-rater reliability. RESULTS: All patients (n = 121; 81 discontinuation, 40 continuation) reported at least one reason for discontinuation or continuation (mean = 2.8 reasons for discontinuation; 3.4 for continuation). Inter-rater reliability was supported (kappas = 0.63-1.0). Validity of the discontinuation domain scores was supported by associations with symptom measures (the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale for Schizophrenia, the Clinical Global Impression - Schizophrenia Scale; r = 0.30 to 0.51; all P < 0.01), patients' primary reasons for discontinuation, and adverse events. However, the continuation domain scores were not significantly associated with these other indicators. DISCUSSION: Results support the reliability, convergent validity, and known-groups validity of the RAD-I for assessing patients' reasons for antipsychotic discontinuation. Further research is needed to examine validity of the RAD-I continuation section.

Development and validation of a patient-report measure of fatigue associated with depression.

INTRODUCTION: Among researchers and clinicians who treat depression, there is growing interest in treatment of specific residual symptoms such as fatigue. However, there is no available measure that provides a detailed assessment of fatigue associated with depression. Thus, the purpose of the current study was to develop and validate a patient-reported outcome measure designed to assess depression-related fatigue and its impact. METHODS: The Fatigue Associated with Depression Questionnaire (FAsD) was developed based on literature review, clinician interviews, and focus groups and cognitive debriefing interviews with patients. Then, a draft questionnaire was administered to a sample of patients with depression. Statistical analysis first focused on item reduction and subscale identification, followed by psychometric evaluation of the FAsD. RESULTS: The per protocol sample (n = 317) was primarily female (68.1%), with a mean age of 47.0 years. Based on item performance and exploratory factor analysis, three items were dropped from the draft FAsD, yielding a final 13-item questionnaire with two subscales (experience and impact). The FAsD demonstrated good internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alphas ≥ 0.88) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients ≥ 0.78). The FAsD demonstrated construct validity through strong correlations with measures assessing fatigue/energy and symptoms of depression. The FAsD also discriminated among groups of participants differentiated by clinician ratings of global severity of depression (CGI-S). LIMITATIONS: Limitations include heterogeneity of current treatments received by the sample, as well as lack of knowledge regarding the extent to which FAsD scores were influenced by patients' treatments rather than the depression itself. CONCLUSIONS: In this initial psychometric evaluation, the FAsD demonstrated good reliability, validity, and factor structure. This questionnaire may be a useful tool for evaluating treatment interventions that focus specifically on fatigue associated with depression.

Responsiveness of the Adult Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Quality of Life Scale (AAQoL).

AIMS: This study examined responsiveness of the Adult Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Quality of Life Scale (AAQoL), which was developed to assess health-related quality of life (HRQL) among adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHODS: Adults with ADHD completed the AAQoL, Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale (CAARS), SF-36, and Endicott Work Productivity Scale (EWPS) at baseline and week 8 of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of atomoxetine. Clinicians rated symptom severity and improvement (CGI-ADHD-S, CGI-ADHD-I). Responsiveness was examined through effect sizes and association with change in the measures listed previously (Spearman correlations, GLMs). RESULTS: Analyses included 328 patients (58.8% male; mean age = 36.9 years). All AAQoL scales reflected significant improvement from baseline to week 8 (P < 0.0001). AAQoL change scores were significantly correlated with change in the CGI-ADHD-S (r = -0.37 to -0.50), EWPS (r = -0.43 to -0.63), and CAARS (r = -0.35 to -0.62) (all P < 0.001). AAQoL change scores significantly discriminated among patients with various levels of symptom improvement. AAQoL effect sizes (-0.67 to -1.11) were larger than effect sizes for the SF-36 (0.15 to -0.39). CONCLUSIONS: The AAQoL was responsive to change in symptoms of ADHD, and it appears to be a useful outcome measure for treatments of ADHD in adults.