A novel patient-reported outcome instrument assessing the symptoms of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, the PNH-SQ.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) used to measure symptoms of patients with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) in trials do not measure PNH symptoms comprehensively and do not assess daily fluctuations in symptoms. Following a literature review and consultation with a PNH expert, we drafted the PNH Symptom Questionnaire (PNH-SQ) and a patient-centric conceptual model of PNH symptoms and impacts. We then interviewed 15 patients with PNH to assess comprehensiveness of symptom capture from the patient perspective and to cognitively debrief the PNH-SQ. Patient interview data were also used to finalize the PNH conceptual model. RESULTS: Participants mentioned 27 signs or symptoms of PNH spontaneously or after being probed; 93% reported experiencing ≥ 1 PNH symptom. Concept saturation was reached for all PNH symptoms. Further, interviews confirmed the instrument captured the most common PNH symptoms, including fatigue (87%), abdominal pain (60%), and difficulty swallowing (47%), with fatigue ranked as the most bothersome symptom. The interviews demonstrated that participants understood the items of the PNH-SQ (90-100%); considered the symptoms relevant (> 50- > 90%); the recall period appropriate (> 80-100%); and the response options suitable (> 80-100%). Participants also suggested changes regarding item redundancy and relevance; this feedback was used to finalize the instrument. CONCLUSIONS: The finalized PNH-SQ assesses the presence and severity of 10 symptoms-abdominal pain, chest discomfort, difficulty sleeping, difficulty swallowing, difficulty thinking clearly, fatigue, headache, muscle weakness, pain in the legs or back, and shortness of breath-over 24 h. The PNH-SQ is a content-valid questionnaire suitable for assessing daily symptom presence and severity in PNH clinical trials.

Engaging patients and parents to improve mental health intervention for youth with rheumatological disease.

BACKGROUND: Mental health disorders are common in youth with rheumatological disease yet optimal intervention strategies are understudied in this population. We examined patient and parent perspectives on mental health intervention for youth with rheumatological disease. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods cross-sectional study, via anonymous online survey, developed by researchers together with patient/parent partners, to quantitatively and qualitatively examine youth experiences with mental health services and resources in North America. Patients ages 14-24 years with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, juvenile dermatomyositis, or systemic lupus erythematous, and parents of patients ages 8-24 with these diseases were eligible (not required to participate in pairs). Participants self-reported mental health problems (categorized into clinician-diagnosed disorders vs self-diagnosed symptoms) and treatments (e.g. therapy, medications) received for the youth. Multivariate linear regression models compared patient and parent mean Likert ratings for level of: i) comfort with mental health providers, and ii) barriers to seeking mental health services, adjusting for potential confounders (patient age, gender, disease duration, and patient/parent visual analog score for disease-related health). Participants indicated usefulness of mental health resources; text responses describing these experiences were analyzed by qualitative description. RESULTS: Participants included 123 patients and 324 parents. Patients reported clinician-diagnosed anxiety (39%) and depression (35%); another 27 and 18% endorsed self-diagnosed symptoms of these disorders, respectively. 80% of patients with clinician-diagnosed disorders reported receiving treatment, while 11% of those with self-diagnosed symptoms reported any treatment. Patients were less comfortable than parents with all mental health providers. The top two barriers to treatment for patients and parents were concerns about mental health providers not understanding the rheumatological disease, and inadequate insurance coverage. Over 60% had used patient mental health resources, and over 60% of these participants found them to be helpful, although text responses identified a desire for resources tailored to patients with rheumatological disease. CONCLUSION: Self-reported mental health problems are prevalent for youth in this sample with rheumatological disease, and obstacles to mental health treatment include disease-related and logistic factors. Strategies are needed to improve acceptance and accessibility of mental health intervention, including routine mental health screening and availability of disease-specific mental health resources.

Patient-Reported Lupus Flare Symptoms Are Associated with Worsened Patient Outcomes and Increased Economic Burden.

BACKGROUND: Lupus flares significantly contribute to health resource utilization and hospitalizations. Identification of flare activity may be hindered since validated assessment scales are rarely used in clinical practice and flare severity may fall below clinician-assessed thresholds. Therefore, patient-reported outcomes of lupus flare frequency are important assessment tools for lupus management. OBJECTIVE: To better understand the relationship between lupus flares as reported by persons with lupus and specific direct and indirect costs, including hospital admission, unplanned urgent care (UC)/emergency department (ED) visits, work productivity loss, and nonwork activity impairment. METHODS: In this cross-sectional analysis, persons with lupus were drawn from 2 enriched sampling sources. Data were collected via an online survey and included individuals with self-reported physician's diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus, skin or discoid lupus, or lupus nephritis. Respondents were asked the total number of hospitalizations and ED/UC visits for any reason and for lupus-related hospitalizations and ED/UC visits. Work productivity loss and nonwork activity impairment were measured via the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment - General Health scale. The sample was stratified into those with 0 flares, 1-3 flares, 4-6 flares, and 7 or more flares, with 0 flares used as the reference. Chi-square tests for trend and analyses of variance were used to evaluate differences among flare frequency groups. Multivariable regression modeling was conducted to evaluate the independent relationship of flare frequency to health care use and productivity loss. RESULTS: We studied 1,288 survey respondents with known flare frequency in the past 12 months. Flare frequency increased with duration of illness. The mean number of lupus-related hospital admissions was significantly associated with increasing flare frequency for the total sample (F = 3.9; P < 0.009). Compared to patients with no flare, those who reported flare activities had 1.72-3.13 times higher rates of hospitalizations. The mean number of lupus-related ED/UC visits were also found to be significantly associated with increasing flare frequency for the total sample (F = 23.4; P < 0.001), and rates were increased by 6.98- to 16.12-fold for unplanned ED/UC visits depending on flare frequency. Rates of employment were significantly related to increasing flare frequency. With respect to work-related impairment, absenteeism increased with greater lupus flare frequency (F = 6.2; P < 0.001), as did presenteeism (F = 31.5; P < 0.001) and the combined value of total work productivity loss (F = 30.4; P < 0.001). Mean work-related activity impairment was 12%-32% more among patients who reported flare activities compared to those who reported no flares. CONCLUSIONS: Increased lupus-related flare frequency is associated with worsened patient outcomes as measured by increased hospitalizations, visits to the ED/UC, work productivity loss, and activity impairment. This association may be an important indicator of disease severity and resource burden and therefore suggests an unmet need among patients experiencing lupus-related flares. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals via grants to Vedanta Research and The Lupus Foundation of America. Katz received consulting fees from Vedanta Research, which received grant support from Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals to support data collection and analysis. Nelson and Connolly-Strong are employees of Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals and are stockholders in the company. Reed is an employee of Vedanta Research. Daly and Topf are employees of the Lupus Foundation of America, which received grant funding to support data collection. This study was a podium presentation at The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Annual Meeting 2018; October 19-24, 2018; Chicago, IL.

Research priorities in childhood-onset lupus: results of a multidisciplinary prioritization exercise.

BACKGROUND: Childhood-onset systemic erythematosus lupus (cSLE) is characterized by more severe disease, widespread organ involvement and higher mortality compared to adult-onset SLE. However, cSLE is largely underfunded to carry out necessary research to advance the field. Few commonly used SLE medications have been studied in children, and important knowledge gaps exist concerning epidemiology, genetics, pathophysiology and optimal treatments for cSLE. METHODS: In order to assess highest cSLE research priority areas, the Lupus Foundation of America (LFA) and Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) administered a cSLE research prioritization survey to pediatric rheumatologists, dermatologists and nephrologists with expertise in lupus. Members of LFA and CARRA's SLE Committee identified a list of cSLE research domains and developed a 17-item tiered, web-based survey asking respondents to categorize the research domains into high, medium, or low priority areas. For domains identified as high priority, respondents ranked research topics within that category. For example, for the domain of nephritis, respondents ranked importance of: epidemiology, biomarkers, long-term outcomes, quality improvement, etc. The survey was distributed to members of CARRA, Midwestern Pediatric Nephrology Consortium (MWPNC) and Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance (PeDRA) Connective Tissue Disease group. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 256/752 (34%). The highest prioritized research domains were: nephritis, clinical trials, biomarkers, neuropsychiatric disease and refractory skin disease. Notably, nephritis, clinical trials and biomarkers were ranked in the top five by all groups. Within each research domain, all groups showed agreement in identifying the following as important focus areas: determining best treatments, biomarkers/pathophysiology, drug discovery/novel treatments, understanding long term outcomes, and refining provider reported quality measures. CONCLUSION: This survey identified the highest cSLE research priorities among leading rheumatology, dermatology and nephrology clinicians and investigators engaged in care of children with lupus. There is a strong need for multidisciplinary collaboration moving forward, which was indicated as highly important among stakeholders involved in the survey. These survey results should be used as a roadmap to guide funding and specific research programs in cSLE to address urgent, unmet needs among this population.

Development and content validity of the Lupus Foundation of America rapid evaluation of activity in lupus (LFA-REAL™): a patient-reported outcome measure for lupus disease activity.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: The LFA REAL™ is a measurement system for evaluating lupus disease activity from both clinician and patient perspectives. Patients' viewpoints are captured using a patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaire. A series of visual analog scales are designed to rate disease severity and progress over the past 4 weeks. Brief instructions guide the patient to distinguish between active, potentially reversible symptoms and chronic pain or discomfort that are more likely due to damage. Beyond its simplicity and efficiency, the PRO can provide versatile assessments from a global, organ-based, and symptom-specific level. This paper describes the patient-centered approach used to evaluate the content validity of the LFA-REAL PRO. METHODS: The PRO was developed in accordance with FDA guidance. A two-phase qualitative study was performed with 25 lupus patients, 10 who participated in concept elicitation (Phase 1) and 15 in cognitive debriefing interviews (Phase 2). Qualitative data were analyzed using ATLAS.ti software v7.5. Upon completion of the interviews, participants completed the draft PRO and additional measures to characterize the sample. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 45.6 and 88% were female, as expected in a lupus population. The mean SF-36 physical component score was 29.8 and the mean mental component score was 46.4. Phase 1 elicited symptom saturation and mapping of the draft PRO. Fatigue was reported by 100% of patients, highlighting its importance as a measurable domain. Additionally, 100% of patients spontaneously mentioned arthritis, which may be more important to this group than previously estimated, substantiating the approach of this PRO to break down components of arthritis into joint pain, stiffness, and swelling. Shortness of breath and fever were reported more frequently than expected. Phase 2 data demonstrated that participants found the instrument easy to use and offered recommendations to improve clarity, leading to adjustments in wording and formatting. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that the LFA-REAL PRO has content validity and, with some modifications suggested by participants, is ready for quantitative validation, including tests of reliability, validity, responsiveness to change, and performance relative to other PROs used in lupus trials. After validation, the LFA-REAL system is intended for use in clinical practice and research.

The characteristics of clinically active older physician assistants.

OBJECTIVE: To prepare for future health workforce requirements, planners need an understanding of the clinical activity of physician assistants (PAs) and their career trajectory. We compared the characteristics of clinically active older PAs to younger PAs. METHOD: PAs were identified from all respondents aged 60 years or older at the time they participated in the annual census of the AAPA from 2005 through 2009. The most recent year of census participation was selected for analysis. This cadre of older PAs was compared with PAs younger than 60 years. Variables included age, gender, year of PA graduation, duration of being a PA, and clinical activity by self-identified work location and specialty. RESULT: A total of 48,692 PAs participated in at least one census from 2005 through 2009. Approximately 5% (2,340) met the age criteria and were clinically active. Clinically active older PAs reported working a mean of 39 hours per week and were employed in a rural setting more often than their younger counterparts. Nearly one-half of older respondents reported their specialty to be primary care. CONCLUSION: Although the career span of a PA is only vaguely understood, a small but significant portion of clinicians appear to remain in the workforce into their seventh decade. They distinguish themselves by working proportionally more in primary care and nonurban areas than younger PAs. Older PAs may represent an American trend by remaining employed longer than historically observed. Gaps in the understanding of role behavior of PAs could be improved with longitudinal databases.