Psychometric evaluation of the respiratory syncytial virus infection, intensity and impact questionnaire (RSV-iiiQ) in adults.

BACKGROUND: Despite a number of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine candidates being tested in clinical trials, disease-specific, self-reported instruments assessing symptom severity of RSV infection from the perspective of adult patients are still needed. The RSV Infection, Intensity and Impact Questionnaire (RSV-iiiQ) was adapted from the Influenza Intensity and Impact Questionnaire (FluiiQ™). This study evaluated some measurement properties of the RSV-iiiQ. METHODS: Data were collected in a web-based survey over two consecutive days. Participants completed the RSV-iiiQ, the Patient Global Impression of Severity, Sheehan Disability Scale, Patient Global Impression of Change, EQ-5D-5L, and a demographic questionnaire. Test-retest reliability, internal consistency, construct validity, and responsiveness of the RSV-iiiQ scales were assessed. RESULTS: 111 adults with RSV were enrolled and self-reported a variety of symptoms across the range of disease severity via a web-based platform. The RSV-iiiQ scales demonstrated satisfactory test-retest reliability, construct validity, and discriminating ability. One-factor confirmatory factor analyses confirmed that each of the four scales was sufficiently unidimensional, and internal consistencies indicated that the computation of RSV-iiiQ scale scores was plausible. Correlation-based analyses provided support for the construct validity of the RSV-iiiQ scores, and known groups analyses supported discriminating ability. Estimates of responsiveness of the scale scores were also satisfactory. CONCLUSIONS: RSV infection is highly symptomatic and causes significant disease burden, and self-report instruments assessing symptom severity and impact are important for evaluation of new treatments. This study describes the preliminary psychometric properties of the RSV-iiiQ and indicates this tool may be useful for the assessment of the severity of symptoms and impact of acute RSV infection in adults. The findings also indicated two items, Runny nose and Ear pain, may be unnecessary and should be revisited using item response theory analysis with a larger sample size.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in KEYNOTE-564: Adjuvant Pembrolizumab Versus Placebo for Renal Cell Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) enrolled in the phase III KEYNOTE-564 trial (NCT03142334), disease-free survival (DFS) following nephrectomy was prolonged with use of adjuvant pembrolizumab therapy versus placebo. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide an important measure of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and can complement efficacy and safety results. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In KEYNOTE-564, 994 patients were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg (n = 496) or placebo (n = 498) intravenously every 3 weeks for ≤17 cycles. Patients who received ≥1 dose of treatment and completed ≥1 HRQoL assessment were included in this analysis. HRQoL end points were assessed using the EORTC QLQ-C30, FKSI-DRS, and EQ VAS. Prespecified and exploratory PRO end points were mean change from baseline in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL score, EORTC QLQ-C30 physical function subscale score, and FKSI-DRS score. RESULTS: No clinically meaningful difference in least squares mean scores for pembrolizumab versus placebo were observed at week 52 for EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL (-2.5; 95% CI -5.2 to 0.1), EORTC QLQ-C30 physical functioning (-0.87; 95% CI -2.7 to 1.0), and FKSI-DRS (-0.7; 95% CI -1.2 to -0.1). Most PRO scores remained stable or improved for the EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QoL (pembrolizumab, 54.3%; placebo, 67.5%), EORTC QLQ-C30 physical functioning (pembrolizumab, 64.7%; placebo, 68.8%), and FKSI-DRS (pembrolizumab, 58.2%; placebo, 66.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant treatment with pembrolizumab did not result in deterioration of HRQoL. These findings together with the safety and efficacy findings support adjuvant pembrolizumab treatment following nephrectomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03142334.

Measuring dengue illness intensity: Development and content validity of the dengue virus daily diary (DENV-DD).

BACKGROUND: Dengue is the most prevalent arboviral infection causing an estimated 50-60 million cases of febrile illness globally per year, exacting considerable disease burden. Few instruments exist to assess the patient illness experience, with most based on healthcare provider assessment, lacking standardization in timepoints and symptom assessment. This study aimed to evaluate the content validity of the novel 'Dengue Virus Daily Diary (DENV-DD)', designed to measure symptom intensity and disease burden within outpatient infant to adult populations. METHODS: The Dengue Illness Index Report Card was used as a foundation to create the DENV-DD, consisting of patient- and observer-reported outcome (PRO/ObsRO) instruments. In two South American dengue-endemic communities, qualitative combined concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews were conducted among individuals and caregivers of children with symptomatic laboratory-confirmed dengue. Interviews were conducted across two rounds allowing DENV-DD modifications. A small-scale quantitative assessment of the DENV-DD was also conducted with data from an independent Dengue Human Infection Model (DHIM) to generate early evidence of feasibility of DENV-DD completion, instrument performance and insight into the sign/symptom trajectory over the course of illness. RESULTS: Forty-eight participants were interviewed (20 adults, 20 older children/adolescents with their caregivers, 8 caregivers of younger children). A wide spectrum of signs/symptoms lasting 3-15 days were reported with fever, headache, body ache/pain, loss of appetite, and body weakness each reported by > 70% participants. DENV-DD instructions, items and response scales were understood, and items were considered relevant across ages. DHIM data supported feasibility of DENV-DD completion. CONCLUSIONS: Findings demonstrate content validity of the DENV-DD (PRO/ObsRO instruments) in dengue-endemic populations. Psychometric and cultural validity studies are ongoing to support use of the DENV-DD in clinical studies.

Dengue is the most common viral infection transmitted to humans by mosquitos, and affects an estimated 50­60 million individuals globally per year. However, there are few resources for understanding and capturing the patient experience of dengue throughout illness. Most research studies are based on healthcare provider assessment, which lack consistency in terms of assessment time points and the signs/symptoms assessed. The 'Dengue Illness Index Report Card (DII-RC)' was used as a foundation to create the new 'Dengue Virus Daily Diary (DENV-DD)' to better capture the patient experience of symptom intensity and dengue disease burden for the duration of illness. Forty-eight individuals and caregivers of younger children from Peru and Ecuador who recently had symptomatic dengue were interviewed to understand the patient experience over the time of illness and to test whether the DENV-DD is understood by patients and caregivers and includes all relevant and important signs/symptoms and health-related quality of life impacts. Nine individuals with active dengue infection also completed the DENV-DD daily for 28-days as part of a clinical study. We found that > 70% of patients experienced fever, headache, body ache/pain, loss of appetite and body weakness. The DENV-DD instructions, questions and response option(s) were well understood, feasible to complete and the concepts assessed by the DENV-DD were relevant to the dengue experience. Our study adds to the understanding of the dengue illness experience and supports the DENV-DD for use in future dengue studies as an assessment of signs/symptoms throughout the duration of illness.

Patient-reported Outcome Measurement and Reporting for Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Literature Review.

CONTEXT: In the oncology setting, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide important data that help to ensure patient-relevant endpoints are captured and reported. Use of this information for treatment decision-making by clinicians and patients in real-world settings is facilitated by consistent and transparent reporting of trial methods. OBJECTIVE: To identify and compare PROMs used in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) trials in terms of the rationale for the choice of measure, endpoint hierarchy (primary, secondary, exploratory), assessment time points, statistical methods, and statistical metrics for interpretation. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic literature review via searches of four online databases (2016-2021) and recent conference abstracts (2019-2021) identified 2616 articles, of which 33 were included in the review according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Among the 33 clinical studies included, 19 different PROMs were identified: three kidney cancer-specific scales, two cancer-specific scales, two generic scales, and 12 symptom-specific scales. The endpoint hierarchy for patient reported outcome (PRO) assessment was reported in 42% of the studies; one study included PROs as a primary endpoint. Reporting of time points, minimal important differences, and statistical analyses was highly heterogeneous. CONCLUSIONS: A diverse range of PROMs have been included in clinical studies for patients with advanced/metastatic RCC. Prespecified analyses for PRO assessments were generally not stated, while analytical methods and reporting varied. An improvement in alignment across studies would better inform regulatory, market-access, reimbursement, and clinical decision-making to improve patient care. PATIENT SUMMARY: We reviewed how the impact of cancer therapies on health outcomes from the patient's point of view is being measured in clinical trials for kidney cancer. The techniques and reporting varied across trials. Standardisation of how these data are captured and reported may improve care and decision-making for patients with kidney cancer.

Assessing the patient experience of respiratory syncytial virus infection: development of a patient-reported outcome measure.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) causes significant morbidity and mortality in older adults. Despite a number of RSV vaccine candidates in clinical trials, there are no existing disease-specific, self-reported measures that assess the symptoms and severity of RSV infection from the perspective of adult patients with acute RSV. The objective of this study was to describe the initial conceptualization and development of the RSV Infection, Intensity and Impact Questionnaire (RSV-iiiQ), a new patient-reported outcome measure. METHODS: A targeted review of the literature identified relevant existing measures, symptoms, and impacts of RSV. A draft version of the RSV-iiiQ was developed based on the Influenza Intensity and Impact Questionnaire (Flu-iiQ) with expert input. Qualitative interviews (N = 20) were conducted with participants to optimize the RSV-iiiQ conceptual model and confirm the content validity of the RSV-iiiQ. Interviews included concept elicitation and a cognitive debriefing assessment. A draft conceptual framework was developed, and the electronic clinical outcome assessment was piloted. All steps of instrument development followed Food and Drug Administration guidance for patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: In-depth concept elicitation interviews followed by cognitive debriefings demonstrated that the content of the items was comprehensive, covered the breadth of RSV symptoms and impacts, and was relevant to the experiences of individuals with RSV. Both the paper and electronic versions of the RSV-iiiQ were easily completed. Minor refinements were made to some items based on participant feedback, and the draft conceptual framework was refined. CONCLUSIONS: The RSV-iiiQ was developed for use in clinical trials to measure the symptom intensity and impact of acute RSV infection from the perspective of adult patients. The tool was developed in accordance with current regulatory guidance and is useful to support patient-focused drug development.

Health-related quality-of-life outcomes in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab or everolimus versus sunitinib (CLEAR): a randomised, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Results from the phase 3 CLEAR study showed that lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab improved progression-free survival and overall survival compared with sunitinib in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. We aimed to assess the health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) outcomes from the CLEAR study. METHODS: This open-label, randomised, phase 3 study was done across 200 hospitals and cancer centres in 20 countries. Patients were required to be 18 years or older, with advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma, and a Karnofsky performance status of 70% or higher. Patients who had received previous systemic anticancer therapy for renal cell carcinoma were not eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to lenvatinib (oral 20 mg per day) plus pembrolizumab (intravenous 200 mg every 21 days), lenvatinib (oral 18 mg per day) plus everolimus (oral 5 mg per day) in 21-day cycles, or sunitinib (oral 50 mg per day, 4 weeks on followed by 2 weeks off). Patients were assigned to treatments with a computer-generated randomisation scheme and were stratified by geographical region and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic groups. The primary endpoint, previously reported, was progression-free survival, and HRQOL was a secondary endpoint. Most HRQOL analyses were done in patients who underwent randomisation, received at least one dose of study treatment, and had any HRQOL data. Completion and compliance analyses were done in the full analysis set. Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Kidney Symptom Index-Disease-Related Symptoms (FKSI-DRS), European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), and the EQ-5D-3 Level (EQ-5D-3L) preference questionnaire were administered at baseline and on day 1 of each subsequent 21-day cycle. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02811861, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Oct 13, 2016, and July 24, 2019, 355 patients were randomly assigned to the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group, 357 to the lenvatinib plus everolimus group, and 357 to the sunitinib group. Median follow-up for HRQOL analyses was 12·9 months (IQR 5·6-22·3). Because of the promising efficacy and safety results of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in the first-line setting, we focus the HRQOL results in this report on that combination versus sunitinib. Mean change from baseline in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group compared with the sunitinib group was -1·75 (SE 0·59) versus -2·19 (0·66) for FKSI-DRS, -5·93 (0·86) versus -6·73 (0·94) for EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (GHS/QOL), and -4·96 (0·85) versus -6·64 (0·94) for the EQ-5D visual analogue scale (VAS). Median time to first deterioration in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group compared with the sunitinib group was 9·14 weeks (95% CI 6·43-12·14) versus 12·14 weeks (9·14-15·29; HR 1·13 [95% CI 0·94-1·35], log-rank p=0·20) for FKSI-DRS, 12·00 weeks (7·29-15·14) versus 9·14 weeks (6·29-12·14; 0·88 [0·74-1·05], log-rank p=0·17) for EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL, and 9·43 weeks (6·43-12·29) versus 9·14 weeks (6·29-12·00; 0·83 [0·70-0·99], log-rank p=0·041) for the EQ-5D VAS. Median time to definitive deterioration in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group compared with the sunitinib group was 134·14 weeks (95% CI 120·00-not estimable) versus 117·43 weeks (90·14-131·29; HR 0·70 [95% CI 0·53-0·92], log-rank p=0·0081) for FKSI-DRS, 114·29 weeks (102·14-153·29) versus 75·14 weeks (57·29-105·14; 0·60 [0·47-0·77], log-rank p<0·0001) for EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL, and 124·86 weeks (94·71-134·57) versus 74·86 weeks (54·14-96·00; 0·67 [0·53-0·85], log-rank p=0·0012) for the EQ-5D VAS. No outcomes on any of the instruments significantly favoured sunitinib over lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab. Most HRQOL comparisons of lenvatinib plus everolimus versus sunitinib were similar or favoured sunitinib. INTERPRETATION: These HRQOL results demonstrate that patients given lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab treatment had similar or favourable scores compared with patients given sunitinib, particularly with respect to time to definitive deterioration. These results support the efficacy and safety profile of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab as first-line therapy for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: Eisai (Nutley, NJ, USA) and Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co (Kenilworth, NJ, USA).

Quality-of-life analysis of pembrolizumab vs brentuximab vedotin for relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma.

KEYNOTE-204 (NCT02684292) demonstrated a progression-free survival advantage for pembrolizumab over brentuximab vedotin (BV) in patients who had relapsed or refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R cHL) following, or who were ineligible for, autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Health-related quality of life (HRQoL), measured by patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from KEYNOTE-204, are reported from patients who received ≥1 dose of study treatment and completed ≥1 PRO assessment. The EORTC QoL Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and EuroQoL EQ-5D were administered at baseline, every 6 weeks until week 24, and every 12 weeks thereafter. Prespecified end points included least squares mean (LSM) changes from baseline to week 24 and time to true deterioration (TTD; ≥10-point decline from baseline). Comparisons were evaluated using 2-sided P values uncontrolled for multiplicity. High compliance at baseline (>90%) and through week 24 (>80%) was demonstrated across treatment groups (PRO analysis set: pembrolizumab, n = 146; BV, n = 150). The EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS)/quality of life (QoL) score improved from baseline to week 24 on pembrolizumab and worsened on BV and demonstrated significant LSM differences at 24 weeks (GHS/QoL: 8.60 [95% confidence interval, 3.89-13.31]; P = .0004). Significant improvements were observed in each QLQ-C30 domain except emotional and cognitive functioning. Compared with BV, pembrolizumab prolonged TTD for GHS/QoL (hazard ratio, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.22-0.74]; P = .003) and each QLQ-C30 domain except cognitive functioning. In conclusion, pembrolizumab demonstrated overall improvements in PROs of HRQoL measures over BV in the KEYNOTE-204 study. These data and previously reported efficacy results support pembrolizumab as the preferred treatment option for patients with R/R cHL who are ineligible for or experience relapse after ASCT.

Health-related quality of life (QoL) in patients with advanced melanoma receiving immunotherapies in real-world clinical practice settings.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab (PEMBRO) and ipilimumab + nivolumab (IPI + NIVO) are approved advanced melanoma (AM) immunotherapies. To address limited health-related quality of life (QoL) real-world evidence with immunotherapies in AM, we compared QoL in AM patients receiving either treatment in clinical practice. METHODS: A prospective US observational study enrolled adult AM patients initiating first-line PEMBRO or IPI + NIVO between June 2017 and March 2018. Endpoints included the QLQ-C30 global health score (GHS) and EuroQol visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) scores. Mean changes were compared using repeated measures mixed-effects models and are presented covariate adjusted. RESULTS: 225 PEMBRO and 187 IPI + NIVO patients were enrolled. From baseline through week 24, PEMBRO was associated with 3.2 mean GHS score increase (95% CI 0.5, 5.9; p = .02), while no change was observed with IPI + NIVO; 0.2 (95% CI - 2.6, 3.0; p = 0.87). Among objective treatment-responders, GHS scores associated with PEMBRO increased 6.0 (95% CI 3.1, 8.8; p < .0001); IPI + NIVO patients increased 3.8 (95% CI 0.8, 6.9; p = .01). In treatment non-responders, IPI + NIVO was associated with GHS/QoL deterioration of - 3.7 (95% CI - 6.8, - 0.6; p = .02), PEMBRO non-responders demonstrated no change; 0.7 (95% CI - 2.3, 3.7; p = 0.6). Between treatments, PEMBRO patients increased 2.6 greater in EQ-VAS (95% CI 0.6, 4.5; p = .01) vs IPI + NIVO at 24 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: PEMBRO was associated with better 24-week QoL compared to IPI + NIVO in actual clinical practice settings. Real-world data has known limitations, but with further confirmation these results may have implications for treatment selection.

Evidence to Support Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale Administration Every 24 Hours to Assess Rapid Onset of Treatment Response.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the suitability of the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), with a 24-hour recall period (MADRS-24hr), to assess the rapid onset of the antidepressant effect of a treatment in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Psychometric properties of the MADRS-24hr were assessed together with qualitative assessment of content validity. METHODS: Content validity was assessed using semistructured interviews conducted from November 2013 to December 2013 in patients (18-64 years old) with TRD who met DSM-IV diagnostic criteria and health care professionals (HCPs) experienced in treating major depressive disorder and familiar with using the MADRS. The psychometric properties of MADRS-24hr were evaluated using data from 2 randomized clinical studies involving patients with TRD. RESULTS: A total of 23 patients (15 [65%] women) with TRD (mean age = 45 years) and 11 HCPs were interviewed. With the exception of reduced sleep, the majority of patients and HCPs reported that the items captured in the MADRS can fluctuate in a 24-hour period. The majority of participants also reported that a meaningful change in depression symptoms could be assessed in a 24-hour recall period, except for reduced sleep and appetite. Assessment of the psychometric properties of the MADRS-24hr showed that this instrument had high internal consistency reliability (Cronbach α of 0.84 and 0.91) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.96 and 0.91), had construct validity, and was responsive to change following an intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, results suggest that MADRS-24hr can be used to assess the rapid onset of antidepressant efficacy of a treatment in patients with TRD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01627782 and NCT01640080.