Admission avoidance hospital at home.

BACKGROUND: Admission avoidance hospital at home provides active treatment by healthcare professionals in the patient's home for a condition that would otherwise require acute hospital inpatient care, and always for a limited time period. This is the fourth update of this review. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and cost of managing patients with admission avoidance hospital at home compared with inpatient hospital care. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL on 24 February 2022, and checked the reference lists of eligible articles. We sought ongoing and unpublished studies by searching ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP, and by contacting providers and researchers involved in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials recruiting participants aged 18 years and over. Studies comparing admission avoidance hospital at home with acute hospital inpatient care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. We performed meta-analysis for trials that compared similar interventions, reported comparable outcomes with sufficient data, and used individual patient data when available. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the body of evidence for the most important outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included 20 randomised controlled trials with a total of 3100 participants; four trials recruited participants with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; two trials recruited participants recovering from a stroke; seven trials recruited participants with an acute medical condition who were mainly older; and the remaining trials recruited participants with a mix of conditions. We assessed the majority of the included studies as at low risk of selection, detection, and attrition bias, and unclear for selective reporting and performance bias. For an older population, admission avoidance hospital at home probably makes little or no difference on mortality at six months' follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 1.13; P = 0.30; I2 = 0%; 5 trials, 1502 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); little or no difference on the likelihood of being readmitted to hospital after discharge from hospital at home or inpatient care within 3 to 12 months' follow-up (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.34; P = 0.11; I2 = 41%; 8 trials, 1757 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and probably reduces the likelihood of living in residential care at six months' follow-up (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.69; P < 0.001; I2 = 67%; 4 trials, 1271 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Hospital at home probably results in little to no difference in patient's self-reported health status (2006 patients; moderate-certainty evidence). Satisfaction with health care received may be improved with admission avoidance hospital at home (1812 participants; low-certainty evidence); few studies reported the effect on caregivers. Hospital at home reduced the initial average hospital length of stay (2036 participants; low-certainty evidence), which ranged from 4.1 to 18.5 days in the hospital group and 1.2 to 5.1 days in the hospital at home group. Hospital at home length of stay ranged from an average of 3 to 20.7 days (hospital at home group only). Admission avoidance hospital at home probably reduces costs to the health service compared with hospital admission (2148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), though by a range of different amounts and using different methods to cost resource use, and there is some evidence that it decreases overall societal costs to six months' follow-up. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Admission avoidance hospital at home, with the option of transfer to hospital, may provide an effective alternative to inpatient care for a select group of older people who have been referred for hospital admission. The intervention probably makes little or no difference to patient health outcomes; may improve satisfaction; probably reduces the likelihood of relocating to residential care; and probably decreases costs.

Meaningful changes for efficacy outcomes in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.

Objective: Nasal Polyp Score (NPS) and Nasal Congestion Score (NCS) are commonly used clinical trial endpoints to determine improvements in response to treatment in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). However, limited information is available on within-patient meaningful change thresholds (MCTs) and between-group minimal important differences (MIDs) for NPS and NCS, which would aid interpretation of results. Methods: Data from phase 3 placebo-controlled trials of omalizumab in patients with CRSwNP (POLYP 1 and POLYP 2) were used to estimate MCTs and MIDs for both NPS and NCS using anchor-based methods. Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22) and SNOT-22 Sino-Nasal Symptoms Subscale (SNSS) scores were used as anchors (≥0.35 correlation with NPS and NCS). Within- and between-group differences in NPS and NCS change scores were used to estimate MCTs and MIDs, respectively. Identified MCTs were used in unblinded responder analyses to compare the proportions of patients per treatment group achieving a meaningful improvement. Results: MCTs and MIDs were estimated at -1.0 and -0.5 for NPS and -0.50 and -0.35 for NCS, respectively, and were consistent across studies. Overall, 57.0% of patients achieved the MCT in NPS with omalizumab vs 29.9% with placebo (p < 0.0001). Similarly, 58.9% of patients achieved the MCT in NCS with omalizumab vs 30.7% with placebo (p < 0.0001). Group differences in mean change were statistically significant and exceeded the estimated MIDs. Conclusions: Meaningful change estimates for NPS and NCS could be used to assess response to treatment for patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.Trial registration: POLYP1: clinicaltrails.gov NCT03280550; registered September 12, 2017; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03280550). POLYP2 (clinicaltrials.gov NCT03280537; registered September 12, 2017; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03280537).

The Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD™): a clinical outcome measure for the severity of atopic dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: The validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD™) is a standardized severity assessment for use in clinical trials and registries for atopic dermatitis (AD). OBJECTIVES: To investigate the reliability, validity, responsiveness and within-patient meaningful change of the vIGA-AD. METHODS: Data were analysed from adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD in the BREEZE-AD1 (N = 624 patients; NCT03334396), BREEZE-AD2 (N = 615; NCT03334422) and BREEZE-AD5 (N = 440; NCT03435081) phase III baricitinib clinical studies. RESULTS: Across studies, test-retest reliability for stable patients showed moderate-to-good agreement [range of Kappa values for Patient Global Impression of Severity-Atopic Dermatitis (PGI-S-AD), 0·516-0·639; for Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), 0·658-0·778]. Moderate-to-large correlations between vIGA-AD and EASI or body surface area (range at baseline, 0·497-0·736; Week 16, 0·716-0·893) supported convergent validity. Known-groups validity was demonstrated vs. EASI and PGI-S-AD (vIGA-AD for severe vs. moderate EASI categories at baseline, P < 0·001). Responsiveness was demonstrated vs. EASI (P < 0·001 for much improved vs. improved and improved vs. stable). Anchor- and distribution-based methods supported a vIGA-AD change of -1·0 as clinically meaningful. These findings are limited to populations defined by the studies' inclusion and exclusion criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The vIGA-AD demonstrated sufficient reliability, validity, responsiveness and interpretation standards for use in clinical trials. What is already known about this topic? A description of the development of the validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD™) has been published previously. What does this study add? The current study validates the vIGA-AD by demonstrating appropriate test-retest reliability, convergent validity, known-groups validity and responsiveness across three baricitinib clinical studies. In addition, a 1-point change was identified as a clinically meaningful patient-perceived change minimal clinically important difference in the vIGA-AD. What are the clinical implications of the work? The vIGA-AD is a measure for investigator assessment of atopic dermatitis suitable for use in clinical research.

Development of the PREMature Infant Index (PREMII™), a clinician-reported outcome measure assessing functional status of extremely preterm infants.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive measures to evaluate the effectiveness of medical interventions in extremely preterm infants are lacking. Although length of stay is used as an indicator of overall health among preterm infants in clinical studies, it is confounded by nonmedical factors (e.g. parental readiness and availability of home nursing support). OBJECTIVES: To develop the PREMature Infant Index (PREMII™), an electronic content-valid clinician-reported outcome measure for assessing functional status of extremely preterm infants (<28 weeks gestational age) serially over time in the neonatal intensive care unit. We report the development stages of the PREMII, including suggestions for scoring. METHODS: We developed the PREMII according to US Food and Drug Administration regulatory standards. Development included five stages: (1) literature review, (2) clinical expert interviews, (3) Delphi panel survey, (4) development of items/levels, and (5) cognitive interviews/usability testing. Scoring approaches were explored via an online clinician survey. RESULTS: Key factors reflective of functional status were identified by physicians and nurses during development of the PREMII, as were levels within each factor to assess functional status. The resulting PREMII evaluates eight infant health factors: respiratory support, oxygen administration, apnea, bradycardia, desaturation, thermoregulation, feeding, and weight gain, each scored with three to six gradations. Factor levels are standardized on a 0-100 scale; resultant scores are 0-100. No usability issues were identified. The online clinician survey identified optimal scoring methods to capture functional status at a given time point. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the content validity and usability of the PREMII as a multifunction outcome measure to assess functional status over time in extremely preterm infants. Psychometric validation is ongoing.

Psychometric properties of the itch numeric rating scale, skin pain numeric rating scale, and atopic dermatitis sleep scale in adult patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: The Itch Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Skin Pain NRS, and Atopic Dermatitis Sleep Scale (ADSS) are self-administered patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments developed to assess symptoms in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD). The objective of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties (reliability, validity, and responsiveness) and interpretability thresholds of these PROs using data from three pivotal Phase 3 studies in adults. METHODS: BREEZE-AD1, BREEZE-AD2, and BREEZE-AD5 evaluated the safety and efficacy of baricitinib in adults with moderate-to-severe AD. Clinician-reported outcomes and other PROs commonly assessed in patients with AD were used to estimate meaningful changes and evaluate test-retest reliability, convergent and divergent validity, known-groups validity, responsiveness, and meaningful change thresholds (MCTs) of the Itch NRS, Skin Pain NRS, and ADSS. RESULTS: The test-retest reliability of the Itch NRS, Skin Pain NRS, and ADSS was evidenced by generally large intraclass correlation coefficients (> 0.7) in stable groups of patients between baseline and Week 1 and Weeks 4 and 8. Moderate-to-large correlations (r > 0.4) at baseline and Week 16 were generally observed between each measure and other PROs measuring the same concept, supporting convergent validity. Small-to-moderate correlations with clinician-reported outcomes demonstrated divergent validity. Each instrument was able to distinguish between known groups of disease severity as assessed using other indicators of AD severity. The responsiveness of the Itch NRS, Skin Pain NRS, and ADSS scales was demonstrated through significant differences in their change scores from baseline to Week 16 between categories of change in another PRO also from baseline to Week 16. Thresholds for interpreting meaningful change were estimated as - 4.0 for the 0-10 Itch and Skin Pain NRS items; - 1.25 for the 0-4 ADSS Items 1 and 3 and; - 1.50 for the 0-29 ADSS Item 2, these equivalent to moderate degrees of change. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study demonstrate that the psychometric properties of the Itch NRS, Skin Pain NRS, and ADSS are good to excellent. These findings support the use of these instruments in daily assessment of AD symptoms in adults with moderate-to-severe AD. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov numbers: NCT03334396, NCT03334422, and NCT03435081.

Concept confirmation of the Treatment Administration Satisfaction Questionnaire (TASQ) in rare paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria.

BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to evaluate content validity of the IntraVenous and SubCutaneous Treatment Administration Satisfaction Questionnaires (TASQ-IV and TASQ-SC), for use in a clinical trial population of participants with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH) undergoing eculizumab treatment. METHODS: Participants underwent semi-structured combined brief introduction to disease history and full cognitive debriefing interviews to establish symptoms and key impacts of PNH and to explore the clarity and relevance of both sets of instructions (TASQ-IV and TASQ-SC). The clarity, relevance, response options, and recall period of the TASQ-IV items were also explored. RESULTS: Ten participants with PNH were recruited. Fatigue was the most commonly reported symptom (n = 7); the most commonly reported impact of PNH was on physical activity (n = 4). Nine participants indicated understanding and relevance of the TASQ-IV instructions; three participants suggested changes. Of the 20 TASQ-IV items, ≥ 15 were considered understandable, relevant and to have suitable response options (n ≥ 8). The TASQ-SC instructions were understood by all participants; seven participants indicated relevance. While a few participants suggested minor changes for the items, these reflected the one-off completion of the measure in an interview setting and were thus not considered sufficient to justify modification of the measure for clinical trial completion. CONCLUSIONS: Most participants understood the TASQ-IV and TASQ-SC instructions (n = 9 and 10, respectively) and the TASQ-IV items were considered clear, relevant and to have suitable response options, demonstrating face and content validity of the instruments for the clinical trial setting.

A Study Comparing Patient and Clinician Perspectives of Treatments for Multiple Sclerosis via Group Concept Mapping.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians treating multiple sclerosis (MS) should consider patient preferences when making treatment decisions. An online mixed-methods approach to elicit patient-centered concepts, group concept mapping (GCM), was used to generate statements reflecting the patient experience in relapsing-remitting MS and identify the most important patient-centered outcomes from patient and clinician perspectives. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty patients and 12 MS specialists in the United States provided statements describing what an ideal treatment would do to improve symptoms and daily functioning. Statements were sorted by participants into meaningful domains and rated on importance on an 11-point scale. RESULTS: Sixty-four unique statements supporting 6 domains of clustered concepts were generated. Patient and clinician ratings of importance were highly correlated (r=0.82); however, patients rated the domains of Activities of Daily Living, Prevent & Cure, and Address Symptoms as highest in importance, whereas clinicians rated Prevent & Cure, Safe & Effective, and Activities of Daily Living as highest in importance. Statements rated above the domain mean by both patients and clinicians included "Improve cognitive function" and "Improve motor function" in the Activities of Daily Living domain and "Help with memory issues" and "Help preserve cognition" in the Address Symptoms domain. The statement "Improve short term memory" was 1 of 3 statements rated above the domain mean by patients but below the domain mean by clinicians. CONCLUSION: High levels of agreement of concept importance were found between patients and MS specialists, although certain domains and statements were rated more highly by one group. Overall, concepts such as cognitive function, physical and emotional functioning, and activities of daily living were perceived as having great importance for treatment outcomes versus symptom-focused outcomes like gait or tingling sensations. This comprehensive concept model for the MS patient experience can be used for further development of patient-centered outcome measures in MS treatment.

Effect of Delayed-Release and Extended-Release Methylphenidate on Caregiver Strain and Validation of Psychometric Properties of the Caregiver Strain Questionnaire: Results from a Phase 3 Trial in Children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.

Objectives: Inadequately controlled symptoms and associated impaired functioning have a significant negative impact on caregivers of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This study aimed to assess the impact of evening-dosed, delayed-release and extended-release methylphenidate (DR/ER-MPH) treatment on caregiver strain, measured by the Caregiver Strain Questionnaire (CGSQ), and present post hoc psychometric analyses assessing the reliability and validity of the CGSQ, its ability to detect change (responsiveness), and to derive responder definitions. Methods: The CGSQ was an exploratory efficacy endpoint in a phase 3, 3-week, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled, forced-dose titration trial of DR/ER-MPH in children aged 6-12 years with ADHD (NCT02520388). Psychometric properties of the CGSQ evaluated post hoc included internal consistency using Cronbach's alpha; test/retest reliability using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs); construct validity (known groups and convergent/divergent validity); responsiveness to changes in assessments of ADHD severity (ADHD Rating Scale-IV [ADHD-RS-IV], Conners' Global Index-Parent [CGI-P], and Clinical Global Impression-Severity [CGI-S]/CGI-Improvement [CGI-I]); and meaningful change threshold (MCT) using receiver operating characteristic curves, which were used to compare response between DR/ER-MPH and placebo groups. Results: Randomized DR/ER-MPH (54.5) and placebo (54.9) groups had similar mean CGSQ scores at screening. Caregivers of children on DR/ER-MPH reported significant reductions in CGSQ scores after 3 weeks of DR/ER-MPH treatment versus placebo (least-squares mean: 41.2 vs. 49.1; p < 0.001). The CGSQ demonstrated strong internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.93) and good test/retest reliability (ICC = 0.72). Known groups, convergent/divergent validity, and responsiveness were demonstrated from relationships between the CGSQ and the CGI-S, ADHD-RS-IV, and CGI-P. The mean anchor-based MCT for CGSQ total score was estimated as -9.0 (DR/ER-MPH vs. placebo: 53.2% vs. 29.9% p = 0.003). Conclusions: CGSQ scores significantly decreased after 3 weeks of DR/ER-MPH treatment versus placebo, and the CGSQ was found to be a valid and reliable measure of strain in caregivers of children with ADHD. Clinical trial registration identification number: NCT02520388.

Validation of the 5-domain Niemann-Pick type C Clinical Severity Scale.

BACKGROUND: Niemann-Pick disease type C (NPC) is an ultra-rare, progressive, genetic disease leading to impaired lysosomal function and neurodegeneration causing serious morbidity and shortened life expectancy. The Niemann-Pick type C Clinical Severity Scale (NPCCSS) is a 17 domain, disease-specific, clinician-reported outcome measure of disease severity and progression. An abbreviated 5-domain NPCCSS scale has been developed (measuring Ambulation, Swallow, Cognition, Speech, and Fine Motor Skills) and the scale reliability has been established. Additional psychometric properties and meaningful change of the scale need, however, to be assessed. METHODS: Mixed method studies were conducted to ascertain which NPCCSS domains were most important, as well as to explore meaningful change: 1) surveys in caregivers/patients (n = 49) and 2) interviews with clinicians (n = 5) as well as caregivers/patients (n = 28). Clinical trial data (n = 43) assessed construct validity and meaningful change through an anchor-based approach. RESULTS: Domains identified as most important by clinicians, caregivers, and patients (independent of current age, age of onset, and disease severity) were Ambulation, Swallow, Cognition, Speech, and Fine Motor Skills, indicating content validity of the 5-domain NPCCSS. Criterion validity was shown with the 5-domain NPCCSS being highly correlated with the 17-item NPCCSS total score (excluding hearing domains), r2 = 0.97. Convergent validity was demonstrated against the 9 Hole Peg Test, r2 = 0.65 (n = 31 patients), and the Scale for Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA), r2 = 0.86 (n = 49 patients). Any change was seen as meaningful by patients/caregivers across domains. Meaningful change using trial data and interviews with NPC experts (n = 5) and patients/caregivers (n = 28) suggested that a 1-category change on a domain is equivalent to 1-point change or greater in the 5-domain NPCCSS total score. CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative and quantitative data support content and construct validity of the 5-domain NPCCSS score as a valid endpoint in NPC trials. A 1-category change on any domain is equivalent to 1-point change or greater in the 5 domain NPCCSS total score, representing a clinically meaningful transition and reflecting loss of complex function and increased disability. Trial registration NCT02612129. Registered 23 November 2015, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02612129.

Validation of a menstrual pictogram and a daily bleeding diary for assessment of uterine fibroid treatment efficacy in clinical studies.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the psychometric and measurement properties of two patient-reported outcome instruments, the menstrual pictogram superabsorbent polymer-containing version 3 (MP SAP-c v3) and Uterine Fibroid Daily Bleeding Diary (UF-DBD). Test-retest reliability, criterion, construct validity, responsiveness, missingness and comparability of the MP SAP-c v3 and UF-DBD versus the alkaline hematin (AH) method and a patient global impression of severity (PGI-S) were analyzed in post hoc trial analyses. RESULTS: Analyses were based on data from up to 756 patients. The full range of MP SAP-c v3 and UF-DBD response options were used, with score distributions reflecting the cyclic character of the disease. Test-retest reliability of MP SAP-c v3 and UF-DBD scores was supported by acceptable intraclass correlation coefficients when stability was defined by the AH method and Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGI-S) scores (0.80-0.96 and 0.42-0.94, respectively). MP SAP-c v3 and UF-DBD scores demonstrated strong and moderate-to-strong correlations with menstrual blood loss assessed by the AH method. Scores increased in monotonic fashion, with greater disease severities, defined by the AH method and PGI-S scores; differences between groups were mostly statistically significant (P < 0.05). MP SAP-c v3 and UF-DBD were sensitive to changes in disease severity, defined by the AH method and PGI-S. MP SAP-c v3 and UF-DBD showed a lower frequency of missing patient data versus the AH method, and good agreement with the AH method. CONCLUSIONS: This evidence supports the use of the MP SAP-c v3 and UF-DBD to assess clinical efficacy endpoints in UF phase III studies replacing the AH method.

Rationale and study protocol of ACQUIRE, a prospective, observational study measuring quality of life, treatment preference and treatment satisfaction of autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) patients in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) is considered the most common inherited renal disease. Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and patient experience in ADPKD are difficult to quantify and have not been well studied, particularly in the early stages of the disease. There is evidence to suggest that early-stage ADPKD patients have a lower Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) than the general population due to the signs and symptoms of early-stage ADPKD. However, no research has been carried out on the HRQoL of early-stage ADPKD patients using validated ADPKD-specific PRO measures. Additionally, a new disease progression delaying treatment option has recently emerged for ADPKD. Patient preference for this treatment and unmet treatment needs have not yet been investigated. METHODS: The ACQUIRE study is a prospective, observational study investigating the influence of early-stage ADPKD-related symptoms and treatments on PROs. It aims to collect real-world data on patient demographics, treatment patterns, clinical outcomes, and PROs such as HRQoL, treatment satisfaction and treatment preference in early-stage ADPKD. Adult ADPKD patients in stages 1-3 of chronic kidney disease (CKD) with evidence of rapidly progressing disease are being recruited from seven European countries. At baseline and every 3 months, for a follow-up period of 18 months, general and disease-specific questionnaires are completed remotely to capture patients' own assessment of their overall and ADPKD-related HRQoL. A Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) is also used to investigate the value patients place on different attributes of hypothetical treatment options (e.g. treatment outcomes, side effects) and the role each attribute plays in determining overall patient treatment preference. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will highlight the real-world effects of ADPKD-related challenges on PROs including HRQoL, treatment experience and satisfaction; and help physicians gain greater insight into likely disease outcomes based on early-stage patient symptoms and patients' experience with treatment. Data captured by the DCE may inform ADPKD treatment decision-making from a patient perspective. The DCE will also provide insights into which patients are more likely to perceive benefit from treatments based on the value and trade-offs they place on specific treatment attributes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02848521 . Protocol Number/Version: 156-303-00096/Final.

Evaluating Patient Preferences of Maintenance Therapy for the Treatment of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Discrete Choice Experiment in the UK, USA and Germany.

Introduction: With increasing availability of different treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), we sought to understand patient preferences for COPD treatment in the UK, USA, and Germany using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Methods: Qualitative research identified six attributes associated with COPD maintenance treatments: ease of inhaler use, exacerbation frequency, frequency of inhaler use, number of different inhalers used, side effect frequency, and out-of-pocket costs. A DCE using these attributes, with three levels each, was designed and tested through cognitive interviews and piloting. It comprised 18 choice sets, selected using a D-efficient experimental design. Demographics and disease history were collected and the final DCE survey was completed online by participants recruited from panels in the UK, USA and Germany. Responses were analyzed using mixed logit models, with results expressed as odds ratios (ORs). Results: Overall, 450 participants (150 per country) completed the DCE; most (UK and Germany, 97.3%; USA, 98.0%) were included in the final analysis. Based on relative attribute importance, avoidance of side effects was found to be most important (UK: OR 11.65; USA: OR 7.17; Germany: OR 11.45; all p<0.0001), followed by the likelihood of fewer exacerbations (UK: OR 2.22; USA: OR 1.63; Germany: OR 2.54; all p<0.0001) and increased ease of use (UK: OR 1.84; USA: OR 1.84; Germany: OR 1.60; all p<0.0001). Number of inhalers, out-of-pocket costs, and frequency of inhaler use were found to be less important. Preferences were relatively consistent across the three countries. All participants required a reduction in exacerbations to accept more frequent inhaler use or use of more inhalers. Conclusion: When selecting COPD treatment, individuals assigned the highest value to the avoidance of side effects, experiencing fewer exacerbations, and ease of inhaler use. Ensuring that patients' preferences are considered may encourage treatment compliance.

Healthcare provider perspectives on diagnosing and treating adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

Objective: This study examined adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) screening and management patterns among healthcare provider (HCP) subgroups. Methods: An online survey of US-based HCPs (neurologists, n = 200; nurse practitioners [NPs], n = 100; psychiatrists, n = 201; primary care physicians [PCPs], n = 201) was conducted from May to June 2017. The survey assessed issues relating to adult ADHD screening and management and HCP perceptions of factors influencing patient choice of pharmacotherapy. Participants were required to be experienced in diagnosing and/or treating ADHD in adults (≥5 patients/month for neurologists and NPs; ≥10 patients/month for psychiatrists and PCPs). Results: Significantly greater percentages of psychiatrists than non-psychiatrists were confident in diagnosing ADHD (P < 0.001) and screened/evaluated for ADHD in patients with depression/anxiety disorders (P < 0.001). Significantly greater percentages of psychiatrists versus non-psychiatrists prescribed once-daily long-acting (LA) stimulants (71.6% vs 62.2%; P = 0.023) or short-acting (SA) stimulants more than once daily (40.3% vs 29.7%; P = 0.009) as first-line therapy. In contrast, a significantly greater percentage of non-psychiatrists than psychiatrists prescribed once-daily SA stimulants (32.9% vs 17.4%; P < 0.001). Psychiatrist and non-psychiatrist HCPs viewed insurance coverage/treatment costs (79.9%), perceived duration of effect (72.2%), and side effects (66.5%) as important factors to patients when choosing treatment. HCPs reported that the greatest mean ± SD percentages of patients changed their treatment regimen in the past 6 months because of perceptions of insufficient duration of effect (35.4% ± 22.1%) and lack of efficacy (30.3% ± 21.0%). Conclusion: Compared with psychiatrists, non-psychiatrists exhibited less confidence in diagnosing adult ADHD and experienced greater difficulty determining optimal treatment regimens.

Health-Related Quality of Life and Work Productivity of Adults With ADHD: A U.K. Web-Based Cross-Sectional Survey.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in adult ADHD. METHOD: U.K. residents aged 18 to 55 years with ADHD and no major mental health comorbidities completed an online survey of disorder history, the EuroQoL 5-Dimensions 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L), and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: General Health (WPAI:GH). ADHD Rating Scale-IV (ADHD-RS-IV) score was assessed by telephone. RESULTS: In total, 233 participants completed the study (mean age 32.6 years; 65.2% women). Mean ( SD) ADHD-RS-IV total score, EQ-5D utility, and visual analog scale (VAS) scores were 43.5 (7.88), 0.74 (.21), and 69.8 (17.76), respectively. Mean ( SD) WPAI:GH scores indicated that health problems caused 45.7% (29.9) overall work impairment and 45.8% (28.9) impairment in regular daily activities. Greater work and activity impairment were both significantly independently associated with lower utility after adjusting for age, gender, and somatic comorbidities. CONCLUSION: Adult ADHD impairs HRQoL, work productivity, and regular daily activities.

Evaluation of the Measurement Properties of Four Performance Outcome Measures in Patients with Elective Hip Replacements, Elective Knee Replacements, or Hip Fractures.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the measurement properties of four performance outcome (PerfO) measures (timed up and go, four-step stair climb, long stair climb, and repeated chair stand) in three patient populations(elective total hip replacement [eTHR], elective total knee replacement [eTKR], and hip fracture [HF]). METHODS: A cross-sectional and longitudinal design was used to assess the PerfO measurement properties using the US Food and Drug Administration guidance for industry around patient-reported outcome measures to support labeling claims. Patient-reported outcome measures and patient- and clinician-reported global concept items were completed along with four PerfO measures at visit 1 and two follow-up visits. Measurement properties assessed included reliability, construct validity, ability to detect change, and estimates of meaningful change. RESULTS: A total of 280 patients (100 eTHR, 105 eTKR, and 75 HF) were recruited, with most (n = 276) providing data at visit 1. Most of the patients were female (64%) and retired (64%), and had at least one comorbidity (91%). Inter-rater and test-retest reliability ranged from good to excellent (0.73 ≤ intraclass correlation coefficient ≤ 0.95) for each PerfO measure. Known-groups validity was demonstrated for all PerfO measures, with those reporting less pain better physical functioning and those who did not use an assistive device having quicker mean completion times. Construct validity and ability to detect change were demonstrated and estimates of meaningful change derived. CONCLUSIONS: This study found the measurement properties of four PerfO measures in samples of patients with eTHR, eTKR, and HF to be supported for consideration of future use, and provided estimates for interpretation of change.

Evaluating the Impact and Benefits of Fluticasone Furoate/Vilanterol in Individuals with Asthma or COPD: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Patient Experiences.

INTRODUCTION: This study evaluated patients' experiences with fluticasone furoate/vilanterol (FF/VI) combination therapy in UK patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: Participants aged ≥ 18 years, with self-reported, physician-diagnosed asthma or COPD (≥ 1 year) who had been receiving FF/VI (≥ 3 months) were recruited from UK primary care. This two-phase, mixed-methods study consisted of a semi-structured, telephone-interview phase (qualitative) and a self-completed online/paper-survey phase (quantitative). RESULTS: The telephone-interview phase included 50 individuals [asthma, n = 25; COPD, n = 25; mean age (SD) 56.7 years (13.3); 50% female]. Of these, 21 with asthma reported that their condition was stable/well controlled and 13 with COPD felt their condition was manageable. Most participants found FF/VI easy to use (asthma, 25; COPD, 23), easy to integrate into their daily routine (asthma, 25; COPD, 24), and able to control symptoms for ≥ 24 h (asthma, 14; COPD, 16). During the survey phase, 199 individuals were recruited [asthma, n = 100; COPD, n = 99; mean age (SD) 63.6 years (15.1); 59.3% female]. Most participants were satisfied/very satisfied with the efficacy of FF/VI in terms of all-day symptom relief (asthma, 84%; COPD, 75%) and found FF/VI easy/very easy to fit into their daily routine (asthma, 99%; COPD, 96%), easy/very easy to use (asthma, 97%; COPD, 92%), and convenient/very convenient to take as instructed (asthma, 95%; COPD, 93%). Significantly more individuals with asthma (87% versus 46%, P < 0.001) and numerically more individuals with COPD (84% versus 76%, P = 0.055) were satisfied/very satisfied with FF/VI compared with their most recent previous maintenance medication. CONCLUSION: The majority of individuals in this study had confidence in FF/VI and were satisfied or very satisfied with various key attributes of the treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: GSK study HO-15-15503/204888. FUNDING: GSK.

Elicitation of health state utilities associated with the mode of administration of drugs acting on the prostacyclin pathway in pulmonary arterial hypertension.

INTRODUCTION: Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a rare, incurable disease associated with decreased life expectancy and a marked impact on quality of life (QoL). There are three classes of drugs available for treatment: endothelin receptor antagonists (ERA), drugs acting on nitric oxide pathway (riociguat and phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors [PDE5i]), and drugs acting on prostacyclin pathway. The latter have widely different modes of administration - continuous intravenous infusion, continuous subcutaneous infusion, inhaled, and oral - each associated with variable treatment burden, and implications for health economic assessment. This study aimed to establish utility values associated with different modes of administration of drugs acting on the prostacyclin pathway for use in economic evaluations of PAH treatments. METHODS: A UK general public sample completed the EQ-5D-5L and valued four health states in time trade-off interviews. The health states drafted from literature and interviews with PAH experts (n=3) contained identical descriptions of PAH and ERA/PDE5i treatment, but differed in description of administration including oral (tablets), inhaled (nebulizer), continuous subcutaneous infusion, and continuous intravenous infusion. RESULTS: A total of 150 participants (63% female; mean age 37 years) completed interviews. Utilities are presented as values between 0 and 1, with 0 representing the state of being dead and 1 representing being in full health. The mean (SD) utility for oral health state was 0.85 (0.16), while all other health states were significantly lower at 0.74 (0.27) for inhaled (p=0.001), 0.59 (0.31) for subcutaneous (p<0.001) and 0.54 (0.32) for intravenous (p<0.001), indicating that there are disutilities (negative differences) associated with non-oral health states. Disutilities were -0.11 for inhaled, -0.26 for subcutaneous, and -0.31 for intravenous administration. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate quantifiable QoL differences between modes of administration of drugs acting on the prostacyclin pathway. QoL burden should be considered for economic evaluation of drugs for PAH treatment.

Selection of and Evidentiary Considerations for Wearable Devices and Their Measurements for Use in Regulatory Decision Making: Recommendations from the ePRO Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Wearable devices offer huge potential to collect rich sources of data to provide insights into the effects of treatment interventions. Despite this, at the time of writing this report, limited regulatory guidance on the use of wearables in clinical trial programs has been published. OBJECTIVES: To present recommendations from the Critical Path Institute's Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Consortium regarding the selection and evaluation of wearable devices and their measurements for use in regulatory trials and to support labeling claims. METHODS: The evaluation group was composed of Critical Path Institute's clinical outcome assessment (COA) scientists and COA specialists from pharmaceutical trial eCOA solution providers, including COA development and validation specialists. The resulting recommendations were drawn from a broad range of backgrounds, perspectives, and expertise that enriched the development of this report. Recommendations were developed through analysis of existing regulatory guidance relating to COA development and use in clinical trials, medical device certification/clearance regulations, literature-reported best practice, and practical experience of wearable technology application in clinical trials. RESULTS: We identify the essential properties of fit-for-purpose wearables and propose evidence needed to support their use. In addition, we overview the activities required to establish clinical endpoints derived from wearables data. CONCLUSIONS: Using this framework, we believe there is enough current understanding to promote the appropriate use of wearables in study protocols. We hope this will provide a basis for discussion among clinical trial stakeholders and catalyze the development of more robust regulatory guidance.

Measurement Equivalence of Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Response Scale Types Collected Using Bring Your Own Device Compared to Paper and a Provisioned Device: Results of a Randomized Equivalence Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the measurement equivalence of individual response scale types by using a patient reported outcome measure (PROM) collected on paper and migrated into electronic format for use on the subject's own mobile device (BYOD) and on a provisioned device (site device). METHODS: Subjects suffering from chronic health conditions causing daily pain or discomfort were invited to participate in this single-site, single visit, three-way crossover study. Association between individual item and instrument subscale scores was assessed by using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and its CI. Participant attitudes toward the use of BYOD in a clinical trial were assessed through use of a questionnaire. RESULTS: In this study, 155 subjects (females 83 [54%]; males 72 [46%]) ages 19 to 69 years (mean ± SD: 48.6 ± 13.1) were recruited. High association between the modes of administration (paper, BYOD, site device) was shown with analysis of ICCs (0.79-0.98) for each response scale type, including visual analogue scale, numeric rating scale, verbal response scale, and Likert scale. Of the subjects, 94% (146 of 155) stated that they would definitely or probably be willing to download an app onto their own mobile device for a forthcoming clinical trial. Forty-five percent of subjects felt BYOD would be more convenient compared with 15% preferring a provisioned device (40% had no preference). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides strong evidence supporting the use of BYOD for PROM collection in terms of the conservation of instrument measurement equivalence across the most widely used response scale types, and high patient acceptance of the approach.