Benralizumab for the Prevention of COPD Exacerbations.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of benralizumab, an interleukin-5 receptor alpha-directed cytolytic monoclonal antibody, for the prevention of exacerbations in patients with moderate to very severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are not known. METHODS: In the GALATHEA and TERRANOVA trials, we enrolled patients with COPD (at a ratio of approximately 2:1 on the basis of eosinophil count [≥220 per cubic millimeter vs. <220 per cubic millimeter]) who had frequent exacerbations despite receiving guideline-based inhaled treatment. Patients were randomly assigned to receive benralizumab (30 or 100 mg in GALATHEA; 10, 30, or 100 mg in TERRANOVA) every 8 weeks (every 4 weeks for the first three doses) or placebo. The primary end point was the treatment effect of benralizumab, measured as the annualized COPD exacerbation rate ratio (benralizumab vs. placebo) at week 56 in patients with baseline blood eosinophil counts of 220 per cubic millimeter or greater. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: In GALATHEA, the estimates of the annualized exacerbation rate were 1.19 per year (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04 to 1.36) in the 30-mg benralizumab group, 1.03 per year (95% CI, 0.90 to 1.19) in the 100-mg benralizumab group, and 1.24 per year (95% CI, 1.08 to 1.42) in the placebo group; the rate ratio as compared with placebo was 0.96 for 30 mg of benralizumab (P = 0.65) and 0.83 for 100 mg of benralizumab (P = 0.05). In TERRANOVA, the estimates of the annualized exacerbation rate for 10 mg, 30 mg, and 100 mg of benralizumab and for placebo were 0.99 per year (95% CI, 0.87 to 1.13), 1.21 per year (95% CI, 1.08 to 1.37), 1.09 per year (95% CI, 0.96 to 1.23), and 1.17 per year (95% CI, 1.04 to 1.32), respectively; the corresponding rate ratios were 0.85 (P = 0.06), 1.04 (P = 0.66), and 0.93 (P = 0.40). At 56 weeks, none of the annualized COPD exacerbation rate ratios for any dose of benralizumab as compared with placebo reached significance in either trial. Types and frequencies of adverse events were similar with benralizumab and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Add-on benralizumab was not associated with a lower annualized rate of COPD exacerbations than placebo among patients with moderate to very severe COPD, a history of frequent moderate or severe exacerbations, and blood eosinophil counts of 220 per cubic millimeter or greater (Funded by AstraZeneca [GALATHEA and TERRANOVA] and Kyowa Hakko Kirin [GALATHEA]; GALATHEA and TERRANOVA ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02138916 and NCT02155660.).

Causal cascade of direct and indirect effects of anifrolumab on patient-reported outcomes: structural equation modelling of two Phase 3 trials.

OBJECTIVES: SLE significantly impairs health-related quality of life (HRQoL). In this post hoc analysis, structural equation modelling was used to examine the 'causal cascade' of interaction between anifrolumab, disease activity and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in pooled data from the phase 3 TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 trials. METHODS: Data were pooled from the TULIP-1 (n = 364) and TULIP-2 (n = 362) randomized, placebo-controlled, 52-week trials of intravenous anifrolumab (300 mg every 4 weeks for 48 weeks). We evaluated changes from baseline to week 24 and week 52 in four clinical (BICLA, BILAG-2004, SLEDAI-2K and changes in glucocorticoid dosage) and six PRO measures (SF-36, FACIT-F, EQ-5D, LupusQoL, PHQ-8 and pain NRS) in our hypothesized model of interactions. RESULTS: Our hypothesized model had an acceptable fit to the pooled TULIP trial data. At week 24, significant paths revealed that when compared with placebo, anifrolumab treatment improved disease activity as measured by BICLA, BILAG-2004, SLEDAI-2K and changes to glucocorticoid dosage. In turn, these clinical measures reduced pain, which improved fatigue, physical functioning, mood/emotions and HRQoL. When the model incorporated number of glucocorticoid tapers as the measure of change in glucocorticoid dosage, treatment effects of anifrolumab on glucocorticoid tapers were not retained at week 52. However, at week 52 treatment indirectly improved HRQoL through its direct effects on BICLA. CONCLUSIONS: Anifrolumab is associated with significant patient-reported improvements in aspects of HRQoL including pain, fatigue, mood and physical function. These benefits are from the direct effect of anifrolumab treatment on disease activity and reduction in glucocorticoid dosage.

Differing perceptions of asthma control and treatment effectiveness by patients with severe asthma and treating subspecialists in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: For patients with severe asthma (SA), overestimation of asthma control may lead to poorer outcomes. The objective of this study was to assess concurrent patient and specialist assessments of asthma control and treatment effectiveness among a large US cohort of SA patients. METHODS: CHRONICLE is an ongoing observational study of patients with SA treated by US subspecialists. Asthma control was assessed using the patient-completed Asthma Control Test™ (ACT™) and specialist clinical assessment of control. Treatment effectiveness was measured using the Global Evaluation of Treatment Effectiveness (GETE) completed by patients and specialists. RESULTS: 1109 patients who completed online surveys at enrollment were included. 14%, 28%, 25%, and 33% of patients had ACT™ scores of 5-9, 10-15, 16-19, and 20-25, respectively. Compared with 67% of patients with uncontrolled asthma by ACT™, 44% were uncontrolled by specialist assessment. 54% of patients who were uncontrolled according to the ACT™ were rated as controlled by specialists, demonstrating overestimation of asthma control. Based on ACT™ score, asthma control was more frequent among patients treated with biologics compared to other treatments. Using the GETE, 90% of patients reported treatment effectiveness compared with 71% of specialists. Patient and specialist treatment effectiveness categorizations agreed 73% of the time. CONCLUSION: Specialists commonly overestimated asthma control relative to ACT™ scores. Patients reported treatment effectiveness more frequently than specialists. These findings emphasize the importance of validated instruments to assess asthma control and reduce potential treatment gaps associated with patient-specialist discordance. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03373045.

Tezepelumab improves patient-reported outcomes in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma in PATHWAY.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma experience frequent exacerbations and hospitalization, leading to poor health-related quality of life. In the phase 2b PATHWAY study (NCT02054130), tezepelumab reduced exacerbations by up to 71% and improved lung function, asthma control, and health-related quality of life vs placebo. OBJECTIVE: This analysis further assessed the impact of tezepelumab on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in PATHWAY. METHODS: Adults with severe, uncontrolled asthma were randomized to subcutaneous tezepelumab (70 mg every 4 weeks, 210 mg every 4 weeks, or 280 mg every 2 weeks) or placebo for 52 weeks. PROs were assessed using the asthma control questionnaire-6 (ACQ-6) and the asthma quality of life questionnaire (standardized) for patients aged 12 years or older (AQLQ[S]+12). The proportions of responders (defined by improvements of ≥0.5 in ACQ-6 or AQLQ(S)+12 scores) and patients whose asthma was well-controlled, partially-controlled, or uncontrolled in the tezepelumab and placebo groups were identified. The Asthma Daily Diary questionnaire was used to assess changes in overall symptom severity. RESULTS: Overall, 550 patients were randomized. Up to 82% and 77% of tezepelumab-treated patients were ACQ-6 and AQLQ(S)+12 responders, respectively, compared with 70% and 64% of placebo-treated patients, respectively. The proportions of patients with well-controlled or partially-controlled asthma were higher in the tezepelumab-treated group than in the placebo group. In addition, tezepelumab improved the overall symptom severity. CONCLUSION: Tezepelumab treatment improved PROs vs placebo, as indicated by the higher proportion of ACQ-6 and AQLQ(S)+12 responders and improvements in symptom severity in the tezepelumab dose groups. These data further support the benefits of tezepelumab in patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma.

Health-related quality of life with tralokinumab in moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: A phase 2b randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is associated with a substantial burden on quality of life (QoL). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of tralokinumab on health-related QoL in patients with moderate-to-severe AD using patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: This was a phase 2b, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study in adults with moderate-to-severe AD. The patients received subcutaneous tralokinumab or placebo (1:1:1:1) every 2 weeks for 12 weeks and class 3 topical corticosteroid cream or ointment at least once daily from the run-in to end of follow-up. Patient-reported outcome end points were change from baseline to week 12 in the Dermatology Life Quality Index (dermatology life quality index (DLQI); prespecified secondary objective), the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) version 2, and sleep interference numeric rating scale score (prespecified exploratory objectives). RESULTS: A total of 204 patients were randomized to placebo (n = 51) or tralokinumab (45 mg, n = 50; 150 mg, n = 51; 300 mg, n = 52). Tralokinumab 300 mg every 2 weeks improved total Dermatology Life Quality Index vs placebo at week 12 (placebo-adjusted mean change, -3.51 [95% confidence interval, -6.00 to -1.02]). At week 12, both the mental component summary (4.23 [0.98-7.47]) and the physical component summary (4.26 [1.83-6.69]) and all 8 domains of the Short Form 36 Health Survey were improved in patients treated with tralokinumab 300 mg vs placebo. Sleep interference was improved at week 12 with all tralokinumab doses vs placebo. CONCLUSION: Tralokinumab improved health-related QoL in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis, providing further evidence of the value of targeting interleukin-13 in such patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02347176; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02347176.

Development of the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease morning symptom diary (COPD-MSD).

BACKGROUND: The morning tends to be the most difficult time of day for many patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) when symptoms can limit one's ability to perform even simple activities. Morning symptoms have been linked to higher levels of work absenteeism, thereby increasing the already substantial economic burden associated with COPD. A validated patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument designed to capture morning symptoms will allow for a more comprehensive approach to the evaluation of treatment benefit in COPD clinical trials. METHODS: A qualitative interview study was conducted among a sample of symptomatic adults with COPD. Concept elicitation interviews (n = 35) were conducted to identify COPD morning symptoms, followed by cognitive interviews (n = 21) to ensure patient comprehension of the items, instructions and response options of the draft COPD Morning Symptom Diary (COPD-MSD). All interview transcript data were coded using ATLAS.ti software for content analysis. RESULTS: Mean age of the concept elicitation and cognitive interview sample was 65.0 years (±7.5) and 62.3 years (±8.3), respectively. The study sample represented the full range of COPD severity (Global Initiative for Chronic Lung Disease [GOLD] classifications I-IV) and included a mix of racial backgrounds, employment status and educational achievement. During the concept elicitation interviews, the three most frequently reported morning symptoms were shortness of breath (n = 35/35; 100 %), phlegm/mucus (n = 31/35; 88.6 %), and cough (n = 30/35; 85.7 %). A group of clinical and instrument development experts convened to review the concept elicitation data and develop the initial 32-item draft COPD-MSD. Cognitive interviews indicated subjects found the draft COPD-MSD to be comprehensive, clear, and easy to understand. The COPD-MSD underwent minor editorial revisions and streamlining based on cognitive interviews and input from the experts to yield the final 19-item daily diary. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the content validity of the new COPD-MSD and positions the diary for quantitative psychometric testing.

Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis in United States Automated Claims. Incidence, Prevalence, and Algorithm Validation.

RATIONALE: Estimates of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) incidence and prevalence from electronic databases without case validation may be inaccurate. OBJECTIVES: Develop claims algorithms to identify IPF and assess their positive predictive value (PPV) to estimate incidence and prevalence in the United States. METHODS: We developed three algorithms to identify IPF cases in the HealthCore Integrated Research Database. Sensitive and specific algorithms were developed based on literature review and consultation with clinical experts. PPVs were assessed using medical records. A third algorithm used logistic regression modeling to generate an IPF score and was validated using a separate set of medical records. We estimated incidence and prevalence of IPF using the sensitive algorithm corrected for the PPV. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We identified 4,598 patients using the sensitive algorithm and 2,052 patients using the specific algorithm. After medical record review, the PPVs of these algorithms using the treating clinician's diagnosis were 44.4 and 61.7%, respectively. For the IPF score, the PPV was 76.2%. Using the clinical adjudicator's diagnosis, the PPVs were 54 and 57.6%, respectively, and for the IPF score, the PPV was 83.3%. The incidence and period prevalences of IPF, corrected for the PPV, were 14.6 per 100,000 person-years and 58.7 per 100,000 persons, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Sensitive algorithms without correction for false positive errors overestimated incidence and prevalence of IPF. An IPF score offered the greatest PPV, but it requires further validation.

Measuring the patient experience of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis: qualitative development of a novel symptom diary.

BACKGROUND: This qualitative study assessed the experience of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (NP) to inform the development of a novel symptom diary for clinical study use. METHODS: Concept elicitation and cognitive interviews were conducted with patients who had a physician-verified diagnosis of NP and a history of intranasal corticosteroid use. Concepts were identified via open-ended and follow-up questions. Relative symptom/impact disturbance level was assessed using a scale of 0 (not at all disturbing) to 10 (extremely disturbing). RESULTS: Patients (n = 30) attributed numerous symptoms and impacts to NP; the most prevalent and disturbing were nasal congestion (identified by 100% of patients; average disturbance rating = 7.9), nasal blockage/obstruction (97%; 8.2), difficulty with sense of smell (97%; 7.6), facial pressure (90%; 6.2), postnasal drip (87%; 6.5), runny nose (87%; 6.2), facial pain (80%; 6.3), and headache (77%; 6.5). These symptoms, along with the impact of NP on sleep and daily activities, were included in the Nasal Polyposis Symptom Diary (NPSD). Cognitive interviews confirmed that patients understood the NPSD items and could select a response reflective of their experience at its worst over the past 24 hours using a four-point scale (none, mild, moderate, or severe). CONCLUSION: The most relevant and disturbing symptoms, according to patients with NP, were included in the NPSD. Interviews confirmed the suitability of NPSD in capturing the daily experience of patients. These findings support the content validity of the NPSD as a suitable tool for capturing NP symptoms and impacts.

Clinical meaningfulness of a British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment response in terms of patient-reported outcomes in moderate to severe systemic lupus erythematosus: a post-hoc analysis of the phase 3 TULIP-1 and TULIP-2 trials of anifrolumab.

BACKGROUND: The British Isles Lupus Assessment Group-based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA) is a validated global measure of treatment response in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) clinical trials but does not include patient-reported outcomes. To evaluate the clinical meaningfulness of a BICLA response from the patient perspective, we aimed to analyse patient-reported outcomes by BICLA responses with anifrolumab or placebo in patients with moderate to severe SLE. METHODS: We did a post-hoc analysis of pooled data from the phase 3 TULIP-1 (NCT02446912) and TULIP-2 (NCT02446899) trials of anifrolumab, which assessed health-related quality of life using the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36; version 2) and Lupus Quality of Life, fatigue using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), pain using the Numerical Rating Scale, and disease activity using Patient Global Assessment. Changes from baseline and proportions of patients reporting improvements in patient-reported outcomes greater than or equal to the minimum clinically important differences and scores greater than or equal to the normative values were compared in BICLA responders and non-responders and by treatment group (intravenous anifrolumab 300 mg or placebo). FINDINGS: 726 patients were included in the TULIP trials, of whom 366 received placebo (184 patients in TULIP-1 and 182 in TULIP-2) and 360 received anifrolumab 300 mg (180 patients in each trial). The mean patient age was 41·8 years (SD 11·9). 674 (93%) patients were female, 52 (7%) were male, and 479 (66%) were White; 283 (39%) were BICLA responders and 443 (61%) were BICLA non-responders. Compared with non-responders, BICLA responders reported greater mean improvements from baseline at week 52 in Patient Global Assessment, SF-36, Lupus Quality of Life, FACIT-F, and pain Numerical Rating Scale scores (all nominal p<0·0053). Compared with non-responders, a greater proportion of BICLA responders reported improvements greater than or equal to the minimum clinically important difference across all SF-36 domains; eg, Physical Component Summary (165 [60%] of 277 for responders vs 63 [15%] of 416 for non-responders), Mental Component Summary (140 [51%] of 276 vs 59 [15%] of 416), and role physical (184 [70%] of 264 vs 76 [19%] of 398); Lupus Quality of Life domains; eg, physical health (151 [58%] of 262 vs 60 [15%] of 396), and intimate relationships (77 [41%] of 187 vs 33 [11%] of 286), and FACIT-F (155 [56%] of 276 vs 66 [15%] of 439). Similarly, a greater proportion of BICLA responders had scores equal to or greater than the normative values across all SF-36 domains and FACIT-F compared with BICLA non-responders at week 52. Patients who received anifrolumab reported greater numerical improvements in Patient Global Assessment, SF-36, Lupus Quality of Life, FACIT-F, and pain Numerical Rating Scale scores than those who received placebo. INTERPRETATION: BICLA responders reported significant and clinically meaningful improvements in Patient Global Assessment, health-related quality of life, fatigue, and pain compared with BICLA non-responders. More patients with moderate to severe SLE who received anifrolumab were BICLA responders and had improved health-related quality of life, fatigue, and pain than those who received placebo. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Asthma Daytime Symptom Diary (ADSD) and Asthma Nighttime Symptom Diary (ANSD): Measurement Properties of Novel Patient-Reported Symptom Measures.

BACKGROUND: The Asthma Daytime Symptom Diary (ADSD) and the Asthma Nighttime Symptom Diary (ANSD) were developed to meet the need for standardized patient-reported measures of asthma symptoms to assess treatment trial outcomes in adults and adolescents. OBJECTIVE: To determine scoring and evaluate the measurement properties of the ADSD/ANSD. METHODS: Adolescents (12-17 years) and adults (18+ years) with asthma completed draft 8-item electronic versions of the ADSD/ANSD for 10 days alongside the Adult Asthma Symptom Daily Scales (AASDS) and a Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGIS). Using classical and modern psychometric methods, initial analyses evaluated the performance of ADSD/ANSD items to inform scoring. Subsequent analyses evaluated the reliability and validity of ADSD/ANSD scores. RESULTS: A demographically and clinically diverse sample (n = 130 adolescents; n = 89 adults) was recruited. Item performance was generally strong. However, items assessing chest pressure and mucus/phlegm demonstrated redundancy and poorer performance and were removed. Principal-components analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and item response theory supported combining items to form 6-item total ADSD/ANSD scores. Internal consistency (α = 0.94-0.95) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.86-0.95) were strong. Strong correlations (r = 0.72-0.80) were observed between ADSD scores and AASDS items assessing asthma symptom frequency, bother, and impact on activities. Significant differences (P < .001) in mean ADSD/ANSD scores were observed between groups categorized by asthma severity (PGIS), asthma control, inhaler use, nebulizer use, activity limitations, and nighttime awakenings. CONCLUSIONS: The ADSD/ANSD items and scores demonstrated strong reliability and validity. Implementation of the measures in interventional studies will enable the evaluation of responsiveness and meaningful within-patient change.

Health-Related Quality of Life and Productivity Among US Patients with Severe Asthma.

BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and productivity of patients with confirmed severe asthma (SA) have not been well characterized in large, real-world populations. PURPOSE: To characterize SA impact on HRQoL, work productivity, and activity impairment in a large, real-world cohort in the United States (US). METHODS: CHRONICLE is an observational study of specialist-treated adults (≥18 years) in the US with SA receiving biologics or maintenance systemic corticosteroids (mSCS), or those persistently uncontrolled by high-dosage inhaled corticosteroids with additional controllers (HD ICS+). At enrollment, patients completed the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) questionnaire. Results were analyzed for those enrolled between February 2018 and February 2020. RESULTS: Among patients who completed enrollment questionnaires (n = 1109), mean age was 54 years and most were women (70%). Among SGRQ respondents (n = 960), mean (SD) total score was 43 (23); 51% reported good/very good health. Among WPAI respondents (n = 1057; 566 employed), mean (SD) overall work impairment was 21% (25). Patients receiving biologics (vs mSCS, HD ICS+ only) had better SGRQ total scores (38 vs 59, 48) and lower work impairment (17% vs 34%, 27%). Patients with better SGRQ activity scores relative to symptom scores had better SGRQ impacts scores, total scores, and reported better overall health. CONCLUSION: SA significantly affects HRQoL, work productivity, and activity. The SGRQ is a valuable research instrument for evaluating HRQoL in SA. Due to its association with HRQoL and overall health, activity impairment should be a focus when monitoring patients' disease control. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03373045.

Development and content validation of a symptom assessment for eosinophilic gastritis and eosinophilic gastroenteritis in adults and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: A patient reported outcome (PRO) instrument with evidence of validity and reliability for assessing symptoms of eosinophilic gastritis (EG) and eosinophilic gastroenteritis (EGE) is needed to measure treatment benefit in clinical trials. The aim of this research is to develop an EG/EGE symptom PRO instrument for patients aged 12 and above. METHODS: The Symptom Assessment for Gastrointestinal Eosinophilic Diseases (SAGED) was developed through a literature review, discussions with expert clinicians, and concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews with patients. Patients (n = 28) were recruited based on confirmed diagnosis and self-reported symptoms. The final instrument was translated and linguistically validated with additional cognitive debriefing interviews (n = 105). RESULTS: SAGED is a 24-h recall questionnaire consisting of eight items evaluating the core symptoms of EG and EGE (abdominal pain, nausea, bloating, early satiety, loss of appetite, vomiting, and diarrhea). Seven of the eight items are evaluated on an 11-point numerical rating scale ranging from 'none' to 'worst imaginable'. Cognitive debriefing interviews showed that adults and adolescents understand the content and are able to select a response that reflects their experience. The linguistic validation process produced 21 translations that are understandable to patients and conceptually equivalent to the source version. CONCLUSIONS: SAGED is suitable for measuring symptom improvement in adult and adolescent patients with EG and/or EGE. The content validity of SAGED has been established through best practices in qualitative research for PRO instrument development. The psychometric properties of SAGED will be evaluated in a future study.

Daily patient-reported health status assessment improvements with benralizumab for patients with severe, uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe, uncontrolled asthma experience debilitating symptoms that result in meaningful reductions to health-related quality of life. Benralizumab is an interleukin-5 receptor alpha-directed cytolytic monoclonal antibody that reduces exacerbations and improves asthma symptoms for patients with severe, uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate improvements in daily asthma-related health status outcomes following treatment with benralizumab. METHODS: Pooled results from the SIROCCO (NCT01928771) and CALIMA (NCT01914757) Phase III studies were analyzed. Patients aged 12-75 years with severe, uncontrolled asthma, and blood eosinophil counts (BEC) ≥300 and ≥150 cells/µL were evaluated. Patients received subcutaneous benralizumab 30 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W) or every 8 weeks (Q8W, first three doses Q4W) or placebo and completed a daily diary reporting rescue medication use, night-time awakening requiring rescue medication use, perceived tiredness, and asthma-related activity impairment. Outcome measures were compared across treatment arms from baseline to end of treatment (EOT) using a mixed-effect model for repeated measures analyses. RESULTS: Patients with BEC ≥300 cells/µL receiving benralizumab Q8W had greater improvements in all patient-reported outcomes at EOT relative to baseline than patients receiving placebo (all nominal P≤0.013). Effects were reported as early as 3 days following the initial dose and sustained throughout treatment for daily and night-time rescue medication use and night-time awakenings requiring rescue medication. For patients with BEC ≥300 and ≥150 cells/ µL, sustained improvements in activity impairment items (all nominal P<0.05) were achieved with benralizumab Q8W at week 2. CONCLUSION: Benralizumab produces sustained reductions by as early as 3 days in rescue medication use and activity impairment for patients with severe, uncontrolled eosinophilic asthma.

Evaluation of a respiratory symptom diary for clinical studies of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: There are no validated patient diaries for evaluating respiratory symptoms in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). PURPOSE: To evaluate the performance properties of the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms™ (E-RS™: COPD) measure in patients with IPF. METHODS: Concept elicitation and cognitive interviews were conducted with IPF patients to evaluate content validity, including comprehensiveness, relevance, and interpretability of E-RS™ items in this patient population. Secondary analyses of IPF clinical study data were performed to evaluate the scoring structure of the tool. With modifications, reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the instrument (E-RS™: IPF) were evaluated. RESULTS: Qualitative interviews (n = 30) were conducted. During the elicitation interviews (n = 20), concept saturation for IPF respiratory symptoms was achieved; all respiratory symptoms covered by the E-RS™ were endorsed by ≥ 30% of the sample. During cognitive interviews (n = 10), all participants found the items interpretable and relevant. Factor analyses conducted via secondary analysis of IPF clinical study data identified no total score and four symptom scales: Chest, Breathlessness, Cough, and Sputum. Reliability of each scale was high (internal consistency [α] >0.85); 2-day reproducibility (ICC >0.88). Validity was supported through significant (P < 0.0001) relationships with the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), the University of California, San Diego Shortness of Breath Questionnaire (UCSD-SOBQ), and other variables. The scales were responsive to change when evaluated using SGRQ Symptoms, UCSD-SOBQ, and Patient Global Impression of Change as anchors (P < 0.01 to P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The E-RS™: IPF is a valid, reliable, and responsive tool for evaluating respiratory symptoms in patients with IPF.

A new measure of caregiver burden in Alzheimer's disease: the caregiver-perceived burden questionnaire.

OBJECTIVE: To validate the Caregiver-Perceived Burden Questionnaire (CPBQ) and report its psychometric properties. METHODS: The CPBQ was administered to caregivers of patients with moderate-to-severe AD in a double-blind randomized trial comparing extended-release memantine to placebo (n = 676). Measurement properties were analyzed using factor analysis, classical test theory, and Rasch analysis. RESULTS: Two subscales were identified: the Caregivers' Assessment of the Patient (CAP) and the Caregivers' Assessment of Themselves (CAT). The reliability was .89 (CAP) and .83 (CAT). The CAP scores were significantly correlated (r > .3) with scores from the Severe Impairment Battery (SIB) and the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI). The CAT scores were significantly correlated with NPI scores. The CAT discriminated among patients by clinician-rated severity and significantly differentiated between responders and nonresponders. CONCLUSION: The CPBQ appears to be a reliable, valid, and responsive measure that enables linking caregiver's perceptions about burden and patient function in patients with moderate-to-severe AD.