Patient-reported disease impact of systemic lupus erythematosus with active joint symptoms: Results from the systemic lupus erythematosus-update survey.

BACKGROUND: Many people with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) experience joint pain, swelling, and stiffness. These joint symptoms are associated with problems in physical functioning and work disability. We used survey data from adults with SLE to explore the burden and impact of joint symptoms. METHODS: SLE-UPDATE was a 2019 cross-sectional US survey of adults with SLE. We compared respondents with "currently active" joint symptoms' and those "without currently active" joint symptoms. The active joint cohort comprised survey respondents who self-reported current "stiffness in joints" or "pain/swelling in joints" and who had moderate to severe joint pain (Worst Joint Pain Numeric Rating Scale [NRS] score ≥ 4). Respondents not fulfilling these criteria were included in the non-active joint cohort. Outcomes included frequency and severity of pain, patient-reported outcomes (LupusPRO™ and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment: Lupus [WPAI-Lupus]), satisfaction with current treatments, and importance of different treatment goals. RESULTS: More respondents in the active joint cohort (N = 285) than in the non-active joint cohort (N = 215) reported pain most or all the time over the preceding 7 days (77.5% vs. 32.1%, p < .0001), fibromyalgia (45% vs. 12%, p < .0001), and higher (worse) mean scores on the Worst Pain NRS (6.5 vs. 4.8, p < .0001) and Worst Joint Pain NRS (6.7 vs. 4.5, p < .0001). Mean Lupus PRO health-related quality of life (HRQoL) total score was lower (worse) in the active joint cohort (48.9 vs. 64.1, p < .0001). WPAI-Lupus scores indicated greater work productivity losses and activity impairment in the active joint cohort. More respondents in the active joint cohort than in the non-active joint cohort were neutral or not satisfied with current treatments and rated reducing pain as a "very important" treatment goal (26.7% vs. 18.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Respondents with SLE and active joint manifestations in addition to having more pain report lower HRQoL and were less satisfied with their current treatments. Comorbid fibromyalgia may play a role in joint symptoms in patient with SLE joint manifestations. There is an unmet need for new therapeutic options to reduce joint symptom burden among patients with SLE.

Patient reports of the outcomes of treatment: a structured review of approaches.

Patient reports or ratings are essential for measuring the quality of patient care. Measures designed for this purpose tend to focus on the processes and structures of care rather than the outcomes of it. The latter is arguably the most valid indicator of the quality of care patients receive. Typically this information is gathered by probing patient satisfaction with treatment as part of an investigation of satisfaction with hospital care. More recently patient ratings of the outcome of treatment have been obtained to measure treatment efficacy in clinical trials. However, a more direct approach is to ask patients to assess the benefit of treatment on their current health status. We performed a structured literature review on patient reported satisfaction with outcomes of treatment and direct patient assessments of the same. The purpose of this was to identify suitable candidate questions for a short instrument to tap patient evaluations of in-patient hospital interventions. Articles were included if they dealt with patient satisfaction or patient assessment of the outcomes of treatment. Articles were excluded if they dealt more generally with patient satisfaction with care. We identified 169 papers, 79 were included in the review. The findings of this review suggest that there are a number of benefits of directly asking patients to assess the outcome of hospital treatment. Importantly this approach reflects outcomes relevant to the patient and is also more likely to reflect patient report in routine clinical practice. There is also evidence that such approaches have face validity and construct validity. The problems associated with this approach (i.e. response bias), are those common to patient reported outcome surveys, but employing appropriate strategies can minimize them. Furthermore, employing a simple set of questions that asks patients to assess the outcomes of treatment they receive can be time and resource efficient in comparison to administering lengthy measures. This approach could be tested for potential generic use as an evaluative measure for patients in hospital settings.

Use of LCP-Tacrolimus (LCPT) in Kidney Transplantation: A Delphi Consensus Survey of Expert Clinicians.

BACKGROUND LCPT (Envarsus XR®) is a common once-daily, extended-release oral tacrolimus formulation used in kidney transplantation. However, there are minimal evidence-based recommendations regarding optimal dosing and treatment in the de novo and conversion settings. MATERIAL AND METHODS Using Delphi methodology, 12 kidney transplantation experts with LCPT experience reviewed available data to determine potential consensus topics. Key statements regarding LCPT use were generated and disseminated to the panel in an online Delphi survey. Statements were either accepted, revised, or rejected based on the level of consensus, perceived strength of evidence, and alignment with clinical practice. Consensus was defined a priori as ≥75% agreement. RESULTS Twenty-three statements were generated: 14 focused on de novo LCPT use and 9 on general administration or LCPT conversion use. After 2 rounds, consensus was achieved for 11/14 of the former and 7/9 of the latter statements. In a de novo setting, LCPT was recognized as a first-line option based on its safety and efficacy compared to immediate-release tacrolimus. In particular, African Americans and rapid metabolizer populations were identified as preferred for first-line LCPT therapy. In a conversion setting, full consensus was achieved for converting to LCPT to address neurological adverse effects related to immediate-release tacrolimus and for the time required (approximately 7 days) for steady-state LCPT trough levels to be reached. CONCLUSIONS When randomized clinical trials do not replicate current utilization patterns, the Delphi process can successfully generate consensus statements by expert clinicians to inform clinical decision-making for the use of LCPT in kidney transplant recipients.

Patient Expectations and Experiences of Antidepressant Therapy for Major Depressive Disorder: A Qualitative Study.

PURPOSE: This qualitative study explored patient perceptions of the most burdensome symptoms of major depressive disorder (MDD), the impact of symptoms on patients' daily lives, and patient expectations and experiences regarding the timing of onset of antidepressant pharmacotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were collected through facilitated, patient focus-group sessions in the USA between May and June 2019. Participants were adults with confirmed MDD who reported a major depressive episode within the past 2 years, for which they had received pharmacologic treatment for ≥6 weeks. The semi-structured discussion focused on the key topics of bothersome symptoms of MDD, the impact of symptoms on quality of life, and the effects of antidepressant treatment. Interviews were audio-recorded; findings were summarized using a content-analysis approach. RESULTS: Five focus-group sessions were undertaken, involving a total of 29 patients (each attended one session; mean age, 43.4 years; 72.4% female). Mean time since confirmed diagnosis of MDD was 13.1 years. The most commonly prescribed antidepressants received were bupropion (41.4% of participants), escitalopram (34.5%), and sertraline (34.5%). The most frequently reported bothersome MDD symptoms were fatigue (mentioned by 58.6% of participants), lack of motivation/loss of interest (51.7%), anxiety/panic (44.8%), sadness (41.4%), and lack of concentration/brain fog (41.4%). Socialization, family life, and work were the areas in which quality of life was most impacted. Participants expressed dissatisfaction with their antidepressant treatment. Fast symptom resolution was mentioned as a priority (defined as <1 week by 38.5% of participants and ≤1 month by 65.4%). Most participants had not experienced fast relief from their symptoms with current or previous antidepressant medications. CONCLUSION: Results of this qualitative study suggest that fatigue, anhedonia, cognitive symptoms, and anxiety are some of the most bothersome symptoms for patients with MDD and highlight the importance of obtaining rapid relief from these symptoms in order to improve outcomes and patient satisfaction with antidepressant medication.

Patient Experiences, Satisfaction, and Expectations with Current Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Treatment: Results of the SLE-UPDATE Survey.

OBJECTIVES: To provide information on systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) patients' experiences, satisfaction, and expectations with treatments and examine the association between treatment satisfaction and patient-reported outcomes (PRO). METHODS: A cross-sectional, non-interventional, online survey of US adult patients with SLE was conducted in 2019. The survey consisted of 104 questions about SLE and the following PRO instruments: LupusPRO™, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) Fatigue, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI), an 11-point Worst Pain Numerical Rating scale (NRS), and an 11-point Worst Joint Pain NRS. RESULTS: Five hundred participants (75% female, 76% White/Caucasian, mean age 42.6 ± 12.7 years, 63% with an associate degree or higher) completed the survey. Most participants were "completely" or "somewhat satisfied" with their treatments, although satisfaction rates were lower for corticosteroids (65%), immunosuppressants (71%), and anti-malarials (55%) than for belimumab (intravenous or subcutaneous) (86%) and rituximab (94%). Treatments were more often considered "burdensome" or "very burdensome" for belimumab (67%) and rituximab (63%) than for corticosteroids (48%), immunosuppressants (49%), and anti-malarials (30%). Pain and productivity assessments supported substantial impairment for the majority of participants, even those who indicated that they were completely satisfied with treatments. The treatment goals most commonly reported as "very important" were reducing fatigue, pain, and the frequency or severity of flares. Three-quarters of participants (76.6%) indicated that their physician's goals for their therapy matched their own goals "very" or "somewhat closely." Despite high levels of satisfaction, most participants (63.0%) indicated that their physicians had not asked about their treatment goals during the past 3 months. CONCLUSION: SLE patients reported high rates of satisfaction with current therapies despite identifying substantial treatment burdens, residual pain, and fatigue. Reduced fatigue, pain, and flares were the most important treatment goals for these patients.

Patient Preferences for Metastatic Hormone-Sensitive Prostate Cancer Treatments: A Discrete Choice Experiment Among Men in Three European Countries.

INTRODUCTION: Various treatment options are available for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. This study aimed to quantify how men with prostate cancer in the United Kingdom (UK), Germany, and Spain perceive the risks and benefits of hypothetical abiraterone acetate plus prednisone treatment and docetaxel-based chemotherapy treatment options. METHODS: A targeted literature review, exploratory interviews with prostate cancer patients and oncologists, and pre-test interviews were used to develop a discrete choice experiments (DCE). The final DCE included 32 choice sets, selected using a main-effects orthogonal design, divided into two survey blocks. Paired profiles presented hypothetical treatments for prostate cancer through six attributes that could be presented at two or four levels each. Preference estimates were estimated using a conditional logit regression model. Preference results were stratified by cancer stage. RESULTS: A total of 152 participants (mean age 69 years) completed the DCE in the UK, Germany, and Spain. Treatment effectiveness was the main concern for the patients (difference in preference estimates between 8 and 32 months 1.443). Participants wanted to avoid pain that was not well controlled (preference dummy coding estimate - 1.157). Participants valued a change from an oral medication to an intravenous treatment (change in preference estimate - 0.416) more negatively than a change from a 1% to a 5% risk of infection (change in preference estimate - 0.313). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that treatment effectiveness and pain control were the most important attributes for patients with prostate cancer. These two attributes influenced more than 50% of their decision-making in this study. The risk of fatigue and mode of administration were least prioritised by patients. This study highlights the relative importance that Spanish, German, and British patients place on various aspects of treatment options for prostate cancer. Understanding patient preference and taking them into consideration shall help physicians when developing their treatment strategies for their patients. FUNDING: Janssen.

A health state utility valuation study to assess the impact of treatment mode of administration in Gaucher disease.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to obtain UK societal-based utility values for health states related to treatment mode of administration using Gaucher disease as the background condition. METHODS: A review of relevant literature and expert clinical input informed the development of five health states characterising the impact of Gaucher disease and its management on patients' lives. A base-state characterising the "controlled disease" was developed as well as four subsequent health states which varied in description of the method (intravenous versus oral) and frequency of treatment administration. Health state utilities were obtained using the time trade-off (TTO) method via face-to-face interviews with 100 members from the UK general population. Before the valuation exercise, participants provided informed consent, completed a demographic form and the EQ-5D, and ranked the health states from best to worst on a 0-100 visual analogue scale (VAS). RESULTS: Mean age of the participants (n = 100) was 35 years and 66% were female. Participants reported high EQ-5D VAS (86.1) and index scores (0.95) indicating very good health status. The "controlled disease" state had the highest mean TTO-derived utility value (0.89). There was only a marginal reduction in utility for the generic state for "Oral treatment" (0.85), while the reduction was more pronounced for the generic state for "Intravenous treatment" (0.73). CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the avoidance of the need for intravenous treatment administration is associated with a notable positive increase in health-related quality of life. Patient benefit arising from less invasive treatment could be an important consideration when undertaking economic evaluation of future therapies for Gaucher disease.

Resource use and outcomes associated with initiation of injectable therapies for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

INTRODUCTION: Management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) often requires intervention with oral and injectable therapies. Across National Health Service (NHS) England, injectable therapies may be initiated in secondary, intermediate or primary care. We wished to understand resource utilization, pathways of care, clinical outcomes, and experience of patients with T2DM initiated on injectable therapies. METHOD: We conducted three service evaluations of initiation of injectable therapies (glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) or basal insulin) for T2DM in primary, secondary and intermediate care. Evaluations included retrospective review of medical records and service administration; prospective evaluation of NHS staff time on each episode of patient contact during a 3-month initiation period; patient-experience survey for those attending for initiation. Data from each evaluation were analysed separately and results stratified by therapy type. RESULTS: A total of 133 patients were included across all settings; 54 were basal-insulin initiations. After initiation, the mean HbA1c level fell for both types of therapies, and weight increased for patients on basal insulin yet fell for patients on GLP-1 RA. The mean cost of staff time per patient per initiation was: £43.81 for GLP-1 RA in primary care; £243.49 for GLP-1 RA and £473.63 for basal insulin in intermediate care; £518.99 for GLP-1 RA and £571.11 for basal insulin in secondary care. Patient-reported questionnaires were completed by 20 patients, suggesting that patients found it easy to speak to the diabetes team, had opportunities to discuss concerns, and felt that these concerns were addressed adequately. CONCLUSION: All three services achieved a reduction in HbA1c level after initiation. Patterns of weight gain with basal insulin and weight loss with GLP-1 RA were as expected. Primary care was less resource-intensive and costly, and was driven by lower staff costs and fewer clinic visits.