Patient Preferences for Adjuvant Treatment in Muscle-Invasive Urothelial Carcinoma: A Multi-Country Discrete Choice Experiment.

Purpose: The evolving treatment landscape in muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma creates challenges for clinicians and patients in selecting the most appropriate therapy. Here, we aimed to understand adjuvant treatment preferences among patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma who underwent radical resection, including tradeoffs between efficacy outcomes and toxicity risks. Patients and Methods: An observational, cross-sectional study utilizing a discrete choice experiment was conducted across the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, France, and Germany via a web-based survey. Patients ≥18 years of age who self-reported as having been diagnosed with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma were included. Patients indicated their preferences between hypothetical treatment profiles varying in eight attributes relating to efficacy, regimen, and side effects. Preference weights were estimated using hierarchical Bayesian logistic regression; relative attribute importance estimates were calculated. Results: Overall, 207 patients were included (age ≥56 years, 65.7%; male, 54.1%). Patients chose adjuvant treatment 91.2% of the time vs no treatment. Prolonging overall survival from 25 to 78 months was most important, followed by reducing serious side effect risks. Increasing disease-free survival from 12 to 24 months was more important than decreasing risks of fatigue from 54% to 15% and nausea from 53% to 7%. Treatment with the shortest dosing regimen was more important for patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy vs patients who did not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy; prolonging overall survival was more important than reducing the risk of a serious side effect in non-US patients; the opposite was found in the United States. Conclusion: Patients with muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma who underwent radical resection preferred adjuvant treatment over no treatment regardless of side effects. Patients prioritized overall survival improvements followed by a reduced side effect profile.

Prevalence of alopecia areata in Japan: Estimates from a nationally representative sample.

Data on the prevalence of alopecia areata (AA) in Japan is limited and the epidemiology of the disease there is not well understood; therefore, it is critical to examine the prevalence and severity of AA in Japan to inform the need for future treatments and research. A cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted in Japan from January through March 2021. A total of 45 006 participants were identified through general population survey panels and asked about their experience with AA and hair loss. The Alopecia Assessment Tool and the Scalp Hair Assessment PROTM were adopted to screen for history of AA and assess disease severity, respectively. Eligible participants submitted photos of their scalp, which were reviewed by three board-certified dermatologists to evaluate the presence and severity of AA. Prevalence and severity estimates were calculated using participants' self-reported data and verified through the dermatologists' assessments. The participant-reported point prevalence of AA was 2.18%. The adjusted point prevalence following physician adjudication using participant-submitted photos was 1.45%. Topical corticosteroids were the most commonly used treatments, with 34.6% of participants diagnosed with AA reported having ever used them. Participants also reported negative impacts on their mood (70.2%), self-esteem (55.8%), and social interactions (48.9%). Despite the social and emotional impact of hair loss, more than one third of those reporting a physician diagnosis of AA were not currently seeking treatment. The current study identified an estimated prevalence of AA in Japan between 1.45% and 2.18% based on the survey results and physician-adjudication of those findings. Considering the impactful psychological burden of AA, the survey results showing that 38.90% of surveyed patients do not currently seek treatment may indicate an unmet need for remedies.

Patient and economic burdens of postherpetic neuralgia in China.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the patient-reported and economic burdens of postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) among China's urban population. METHODS: This noninterventional study was conducted among adults ≥40 years with PHN who were seeking medical care at eight urban hospitals in China. At one study site, patients completed a questionnaire evaluating the patient-reported disease burden (N=185). The questionnaire consisted of validated patient-reported outcomes including the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), 5-dimension, 3-level EuroQol (EQ-5D-3L), Medical Outcomes Study Sleep Scale, and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire for Specific Health Problems. Questions on non-pharmacologic therapy and out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses were also included. At all study sites, physicians (N=100) completed a structured review of patient charts (N=828), which was used to derive health care resource utilization and associated costs from the societal perspective. Annual costs in Chinese Yuan Renminbi (RMB) for the year 2016 were converted to US dollars (US$). RESULTS: Patients (N=185, mean age 63.0 years, 53.5% female) reported pain of moderate severity (mean BPI score 4.6); poor sleep quantity (average of 5.3 hrs per night) and quality; and poorer health status on the EQ-5D-3L relative to the general Chinese population. Respondents also reported average annual OOP costs of RMB 16,873 (US$2541) per patient, mainly for prescription PHN medications (RMB 8990 [US$1354]). Substantial work impairment among employed individuals resulted in annual indirect costs of RMB 28,025 (US$4221). In the chart review, physicians reported that patients (N=828) had substantial health resource utilization, especially office visits; 98% had all-cause and 95% had PHN-related office visits. Total annual direct medical costs were RMB 10,002 (US$1507), mostly driven by hospitalizations (RMB 8781 [US$1323]). CONCLUSION: In urban China, PHN is associated with a patient-reported burden, affecting sleep, quality-of-life, and daily activities including work impairment, and an economic burden resulting from direct medical costs and indirect costs due to lost productivity. These burdens suggest the need for appropriate prevention and management of PHN.

Epidemiology of physician-diagnosed neuropathic pain in Brazil.

OBJECTIVES: Estimate the prevalence of neuropathic pain (NeP) among chronic pain patients attending Brazilian hospitals and pain clinics in São Paulo, Ceara, and Bahia and explore clinical characteristics by subtypes: painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN), central neuropathic pain (CNP), chronic low back pain with a neuropathic component (CLBP-NeP), postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), post-traumatic neuropathic pain (PTN), and post-surgical neuropathic pain (PSN). METHODS: Physicians screened patients reporting chronic pain for ≥3 months (n=2,118) for probable NeP, using the Douleur Neuropathique 4 questionnaire and physician assessment, and reported their NeP subtype(s), symptoms, and medications. Identified NeP patients completed a questionnaire including treatment experiences, quality of life EuroQol 5 Dimensions [EQ-5D]), pain severity and interference (Brief Pain Inventory [BPI]), and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment scales. Descriptive analyses were performed by NeP subtype. RESULTS: The prevalence of probable NeP was 14.5% (n=307). NeP patients were mostly female (80.5%), middle-aged (mean [M]=52.5, SD=13.9), and Pardo (44.3%). Of those diagnosed with an NeP subtype (n=209), the largest proportions were CLBP-NeP (36.8%), followed by pDPN (18.7%), CNP (17.7%), PTN (17.2%), PSN (13.4%), and PHN (3.3%). Across subtypes, the most widely reported symptoms were numbness (range: 62.2%-89.7%) and hyperalgesia (range: 32.1%-76.9%) and the most commonly prescribed pain analgesics were NSAID (range: 18.2%-57.1%), opioids (range: 0.0%-39.3%), and antiepileptics (range: 18.2%-57.1%). PTN and PSN patients reported the least favorable EQ-5D index scores (M=0.42, SD=0.19) and BPI-Pain Severity scores (M=7.0, SD=1.9), respectively. Those diagnosed with CNP had the least favorable BPI-Pain Interference scores (M=6.0, SD=2.7). Patients with PHN reported the least impairment based on EQ-5D index scores (M=0.60, SD=0.04). Those with pDPN had the most favorable BPI scores (BPI-Pain Severity: M=4.6, SD=2.3; BPI-Pain Interference: M=4.7, SD=2.7). CONCLUSION: Evaluation of chronic pain patients in Brazil yielded a 14.5% probable NeP prevalence. NSAIDs and opioids were commonly used, and there was a high incidence of NeP-related symptoms with varying levels of dysfunction across subtypes.

Characteristics of patients with neuropathic pain syndromes screened by the painDETECT questionnaire and diagnosed by physician exam.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to identify the clinical characteristics, treatment usage, and health outcomes of US adults diagnosed with neuropathic pain (NeP) by experienced physicians. METHODS: Adults with scores exceeding the threshold for probable NeP (painDETECT ≥19) and diagnosed with NeP by a qualified physician completed a questionnaire that included comorbid conditions, pain symptoms and experiences, medication use, health status (3-level EuroQol 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D-3L]: health utilities index and visual analog scale), pain severity and interference with functioning (Brief Pain Inventory), and work and activity impairment (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire). Descriptive analyses were performed for each NeP subtype. RESULTS: Participants (n=295) were predominantly female (64.4%), middle-aged (53.9%), and white (51.5%). Chronic low back pain was the most frequently diagnosed major NeP syndrome (n=166), followed by diabetic peripheral neuropathy (n=58), post-trauma neuropathy (n=47), post-surgical neuropathy (n=28), and central NeP (n=23). An additional 45 participants were diagnosed, but did not meet the criteria for the aforementioned subtypes. Participants could be diagnosed with multiple subtypes. Across each NeP subtype, patients reported high rates of comorbid disease, including arthritis (range: 39.1%-64.3%) and high blood pressure (range: 26.1%-69.0%), as well as symptomology that included numbness (range: 68.1%-91.4%) and changes in muscular strength (range: 24.1%-65.2%). The majority of patients reported back pain (range: 77.8%-95.7%) and arthritis/joint pain (range: 68.1%-78.6%). The most commonly reported types of NeP pain medication were non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (range: 43.1%-70.2%), weak opioids (range: 22.2%-39.3%), and strong opioids (range: 8.7%-28.6%). All six NeP groups generally reported similar levels of dysfunction on all self-report measures. The most notable finding was that the EuroQol-5D-3L health utilities index scores for each of the six groups were lower than the US norms by a clinically important amount. CONCLUSION: These exploratory findings indicate that patients with NeP across different etiologies are medically complex and experience impaired function across multiple domains.

Gastroenterologists' Perceptions Regarding Ulcerative Colitis and Its Management: Results from a Large-Scale Survey.

INTRODUCTION: Misperceptions about ulcerative colitis (UC) may influence management strategies and limit opportunities for improving patient outcomes. This study assessed physicians' perceptions of UC, concepts of disease severity and remission, and treatment goals. METHODS: Gastroenterologists who typically treated ≥10 adults with UC per month were recruited for a large-scale, web-based survey. Participants were asked about their perceptions of UC (often vs. Crohn's disease [CD]), treatment goals, and medication use. Response data were evaluated via descriptive statistics and univariate and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: Gastroenterologists (N = 500) with a mean of 16.5 years (standard deviation, 8.7 years) in practice participated. In comparison to CD, survey respondents perceived UC as being easier to diagnose, having better treatment outcomes, and being associated with later prescribing of biologics. Treatment goals commonly considered to have the greatest importance included quality of life improvement (31.2% of respondents), maintenance of clinical remission (17.4%), and mucosal healing (17.4%). When respondents evaluated the performance of medication classes in achieving these goals, biologics were rated significantly higher than all other classes (P < 0.05). However, the most common drivers for the initiation of biologic therapy were the development of steroid refractoriness (66.8%) and steroid dependency (65.8%). Medication class use by UC severity was generally consistent with the traditional step-up approach to UC therapy, with biologics being used most commonly for severe UC. CONCLUSION: These results suggest a possible disparity between treatment goals and therapeutic management in UC. An increased awareness of general UC perceptions is an important step toward a better overall understanding of the disease and, ultimately, toward improved management aligned with treatment goals. FUNDING: This study was sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), and the design and conduct of the study as well as article processing charges and the open access fee for this publication were funded by Takeda Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (TPI).