Patient satisfaction with the management of refractory and unexplained chronic cough in Canada: Results from a national survey.

BACKGROUND: Chronic cough (persisting for ≥8 weeks) is a common disorder affecting approximately 5 to 10% of adults worldwide that is sometimes refractory to treatment (refractory chronic cough [RCC]) or has no identifiable cause (unexplained chronic cough [UCC]). There is minimal information on the patient's experience of RCC/UCC in Canada. The aim of this study was to evaluate the patient journey and perceptions related to RCC/UCC management in Canada. METHODS: Our exploratory study included Canadians in the Leger Opinion Panel and focused on individuals with RCC or UCC. Key entry criteria were: age ≥18 years, cough on most days for ≥8 weeks, no smoking within 1 year, no serious respiratory disease or lung cancer, and not taking angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Individuals who met entry criteria were invited to complete an approximately 30-minute online survey with questions on demographic characteristics, healthcare professional (HCP) interactions, diagnosis of underlying conditions, current treatments, and satisfaction with HCPs and chronic cough therapies. RESULTS: A total of 49,076 individuals completed the chronic cough screening questionnaire (July 30, 2021 to September 1, 2021): 1,620 (3.3%) met entry criteria for RCC or UCC, and 1,046 (2.1%) completed the online survey (mean age of 45 years, 61% female). Most respondents (58%) reported their chronic cough was managed by a general practitioner (GP). Forty-four percent of respondents did not have a diagnosis of an underlying condition for their cough. Breathing tests (39%) and chest imaging (34%) were the most common diagnostic tests. Cough suppressants (18%) were the most frequent current treatment. Respondents were moderately satisfied with their HCPs, but more than half considered their treatment ineffective and 34% had considered no longer seeking medical attention because of a lack of treatment success. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with RCC/UCC in Canada are largely unsatisfied with the effectiveness of treatment. Additional HCP education and new treatment options are needed to improve patient satisfaction.

Burden of Disease Associated with Refractory and Unexplained Chronic Cough in Canada: Results from a National Survey.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic cough (persisting for ≥ 8 weeks) is a common disorder that includes refractory chronic cough (RCC; cough that persists despite treatment of underlying disease) and unexplained chronic cough (UCC; cough with no identifiable cause). We evaluated self-reported health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) and work/activity impairment associated with RCC/UCC in Canada. METHODS: Our exploratory study included Canadians in the Leger Opinion Panel with RCC or UCC. Key entry criteria were ≥ 18 years of age, cough for ≥ 8 weeks, not currently smoking/quit ≥ 1 year ago, no serious respiratory disease or lung cancer, and not taking angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Respondents completed a 30-min online survey with general and cough-specific HR-QoL questionnaires, including the EuroQol (EQ) visual analogue scale (VAS), EQ-5-dimension 5-level (EQ-5D-5L), cough severity VAS, Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ), and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-Specific Health Problem (WPAI-SPH). RESULTS: Of 49,076 individuals who completed the chronic cough screening questionnaire (July 30-September 1, 2021), 1,620 (3.3%) met entry criteria for RCC/UCC and 1,046 (2.1%) completed the survey. The mean age of respondents was 45 years and 61% were female. Respondents reported impairments in global HR-QoL (EQ-VAS 73.8, 61% with anxiety/depression on the EQ-5D-5L) and cough-specific HR-QoL (mean cough severity VAS score 29.7, LCQ index 15.2). Work and non-work activities were reduced by 34% and 30%, respectively, on the WPAI-SPH. CONCLUSION: RCC/UCC is prevalent in Canada and associated with impaired HR-QoL, particularly in mental health domains. Additional support and management options may be required to fully address this burden.

Canadian Health Care Professionals' Familiarity with Chronic Cough Guidelines and Experiences with Diagnosis and Management: A Cross-Sectional Survey.

INTRODUCTION: Educational programs on chronic cough may improve patient care, but little is known about how Canadian physicians manage this common debilitating condition. We aimed to investigate Canadian physicians' perceptions, attitudes, and knowledge of chronic cough. METHODS: We administered a 10-min anonymous, online, cross-sectional survey to 3321 Canadian physicians in the Leger Opinion Panel who managed adult patients with chronic cough and had been in practice for > 2 years. RESULTS: Between July 30 and September 22, 2021, 179 physicians (101 general practitioners [GPs] and 78 specialists [25 allergists, 28 respirologists, and 25 ear/nose/throat specialists]) completed the survey (response rate: 5.4%). In a month, GPs saw a mean of 27 patients with chronic cough, whereas specialists saw 46. About one-third of physicians appropriately identified a duration of > 8 weeks as the definition for chronic cough. Many physicians reported not using international chronic cough management guidelines. Patient referrals and care pathways varied considerably, and patients frequently experienced lost to follow-up. While physicians endorsed nasal and inhaled corticosteroids as common treatments for chronic cough, they rarely used other guideline-recommended treatments. Both GPs and specialists expressed high interest in education on chronic cough. CONCLUSION: This survey of Canadian physicians demonstrates low uptake of recent advances in chronic cough diagnosis, disease categorization, and pharmacologic management. Canadian physicians also report unfamiliarity with guideline-recommended therapies, including centrally acting neuromodulators for refractory or unexplained chronic cough. This data highlights the need for educational programs and collaborative care models on chronic cough in primary and specialist care.

Post-switch Effectiveness of Etanercept Biosimilar Versus Continued Etanercept in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients with Stable Disease: A Prospective Multinational Observational Study.

INTRODUCTION: To better inform clinicians about the use of etanercept biosimilar (SB4) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), COMPANION-B, a prospective real-world observational study, evaluated the effectiveness of the voluntary switch from originator (etanercept, ETN) to SB4 in patients with stable RA (low-disease activity/remission). METHODS: The study recruited adult patients (18 years or older) with RA (2010 American College of Rheumatology criteria) prescribed ETN as their first or second biologic for at least 6 months across 14 sites in Canada and five in Australia. Patients had stable disease (Disease Activity Score-28 using erythrocyte sedimentation rate [DAS28-ESR] less than 3.2) at enrollment with no evidence of flare within the previous 3 months. Concomitant disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) were permitted. Patients could elect to continue ETN or voluntarily switch to SB4 in consultation with their doctors. The primary effectiveness measure was the proportion of patients with disease worsening (defined as a DAS28-ESR increase of at least 1.2 from baseline and minimum score of at least 3.2 or a defined modification in RA treatment) during 12 months of follow-up. The secondary effectiveness measure was the proportion of patients with disease worsening at month 6. Serious adverse events (SAEs) and non-serious adverse reactions (NSARs) were recorded. RESULTS: Of 163 patients enrolled, 109 elected to continue on ETN and 54 switched to SB4; 65.8% of patients received non-biologic DMARD(s), 52.6% methotrexate, and 10.5% oral corticosteroid(s). At month 12, the proportion of patients with disease worsening was comparable in the ETN group (22.8% [95% CI 15.0-32.2]) and SB4 group (17.6% [95% CI 8.4-30.9]). Similarly, the proportions of patients with disease worsening were also comparable at month 6 (ETN: 7.9% [95% CI 3.5-15.0]; SB4: 7.8% [95% CI 2.2-18.9]). SAEs were low and similar across both groups (ETN: 8.7%; SB4: 5.7%). NSARs were slightly higher in the SB4 vs. ETN group (13.2% vs. 2.9%). CONCLUSIONS: SB4 demonstrated comparable effectiveness to ETN over 12 months in patients with stable RA who voluntarily switched to the biosimilar in a real-world setting.

Patient and Healthcare Professionals Preference for Brenzys vs. Enbrel Autoinjector for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Randomized Crossover Simulated-Use Study.

INTRODUCTION: Brenzys was developed as an etanercept biosimilar of Enbrel. The aim of this study was to assess preference and perceived ease of use for the new Brenzys autoinjector compared to the currently available marketed Enbrel MYCLIC autoinjector (Australia) and Enbrel SureClick autoinjector (Canada) for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Because RA affects manual dexterity, ease of use of an autoinjector is a particularly important consideration in developing effective self-delivery of long-term courses of therapy. METHODS: Patients (N = 191) reporting a diagnosis of RA and nurses and rheumatologists (N = 90) with experience managing RA were shown how to use Brenzys and Enbrel autoinjectors (in counterbalanced order between participants), then they used each autoinjector by injecting into a pad simulating skin, and completed a questionnaire. Study sessions took place in Australia and Canada. RESULTS: A binomial test showed that significantly more patients indicated that the Brenzys autoinjector was easier to use than the Enbrel autoinjector (79% reporting Brenzys easier to use; p < 0.001, two-sided, 95% CI [73%, 85%]). In addition, significantly more nurses and rheumatologists with experience managing RA also indicated that the Brenzys autoinjector was easier to use (86%; p < 0.001, two-sided, 95% CI [77%, 92%) and that they would recommend the buttonless Brenzys autoinjector over the Enbrel autoinjector to patients (83%; p < 0.001, two-sided, 95% CI [74%, 90%]). Almost all patients who reported past experience using an Enbrel autoinjector (N = 17) reported on the basis of using the two devices in the study that they would prefer to switch their device to the Brenzys autoinjector rather than continue their course of therapy using the Enbrel autoinjector (16/17, 94%, 95% CI [71%, 100%]). CONCLUSION: On the basis of the study results, the Brenzys autoinjector was rated statistically significantly easier to use, and was overall preferred by patients and healthcare professionals with experience managing RA patients. FUNDING: Merck & Co., Inc.