QMG and MG-ADL correlations: Study of eculizumab treatment of myasthenia gravis.

INTRODUCTION: A phase 2 study of eculizumab for treating myasthenia gravis (MG) used the quantitative myasthenia gravis score (QMG) and myasthenia gravis activities of daily living profile (MG-ADL) to evaluate baseline disease severity and treatment response. Correlations were then analyzed between these assessments. METHODS: Patients were given eculizumab or placebo during the first 16-week treatment period of the crossover study, with treatment assignments reversed for the second treatment period following a 5-week washout. QMG and MG-ADL scores at baseline and endpoint of each treatment period generated correlation coefficients for baseline status and treatment response during eculizumab therapy. RESULTS: Correlation strength between QMG and MG-ADL scores was higher for treatment response (R = 0.726; 95% confidence interval, 0.264-0.907; P = 0.0036) than for assessing baseline disease status (R = 0.552; 95% confidence interval, -0.022-0.839; P = 0.0495). CONCLUSIONS: MG-ADL may be more sensitive for assessing treatment response than point-in-time disease status. Muscle Nerve 56: 328-330, 2017.

Patient-reported (EORTC QLQ-CIPN20) versus physician-reported (CTCAE) quantification of oxaliplatin- and paclitaxel/carboplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy in NCCTG/Alliance clinical trials.

PURPOSE: Clinical practice guidelines on chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) use the NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), while recent clinical trials employ a potentially superior measure, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-CIPN twenty-item scale (QLQ-CIPN20), a patient-reported outcome (PRO). Practitioners and researchers lack guidance, regarding how QLQ-CIPN20 results relate to the traditional CTCAE during the serial assessment of patients undergoing chemotherapy. METHODS: Two large CIPN clinical trial datasets (538 patients) pairing QLQ-CIPN20 and CTCAE outcomes were analyzed using a multivariable linear mixed model with QLQ-CIPN20 score as the outcome variable, CTCAE grade as the main effect, and patient as random effect (accounting for internal correlation of serial measures). RESULTS: The association between QLQ-CIPN20 scores and CTCAE grades was strong (p < 0.0001), whereby patients with higher CTCAE grade had worse QLQ-CIPN20 scores. Some variation of QLQ-CIPN20 scores was observed based on drug, treatment, and cycle. While there was a marked difference in the mean QLQ-CIPN20 scores between CTCAE grades, the ranges of QLQ-CIPN20 scores within each CTCAE grade were large, leading to large overlap in CIPN20 scores across CTCAE grades. CONCLUSIONS: A strong positive association of QLQ-CIPN20 scores and CTCAE grade provides evidence of convergent validity as well as practical guidance, as to how to quantitatively interpret QLQ-CIPN20 scores at the study level in terms of the traditional CTCAE. The present results also highlight an important clinical caveat, specifically, that conversion of a specific QLQ-CIPN20 score to a specific CTCAE score may not be reliable at the level of an individual patient.

Exploring the Severity Strata of Disease Activity and Repigmentation in Vitiligo Based on Validated Physician Global Assessment (PGA) Scores.

Background/Objectives: There is currently no guidance on how to interpret the global degrees of activity (worsening) and repigmentation (improvement) in vitiligo. Stratification into global degrees can be completed for static evaluations (e.g., visible disease activity signs) and dynamic assessments (e.g., evolution over time). For the latter, the Vitiligo Disease Activity Score (VDAS15&60) and Vitiligo Disease Improvement Score (VDIS15&60) were recently validated. Methods: In the current study, a Physician Global Assessment (PGA) for disease activity (worsening) and repigmentation (improvement) was evaluated for validity (construct) and reliability (inter- and intrarater) based on a photo set of 66 patients. Subsequently, the PGA activity (worsening) and repigmentation (improvement) were used to stratify the Vitiligo Extent Score plus (VESplus), VDAS15&60 or VDIS15&60 into three global categories (slightly, moderately and much worse/improved), based on ROC analysis. Results: For the VESplus, cut-off values for the categories 'slightly, moderately and much worse' were >0.3%, >27.71% and >128.75% BSA (relative changes in the affected total BSA), respectively. For the categories 'slightly, moderately and much improved', they were >0%, >4.87% and >36.88% BSA (relative changes in the affected total BSA), respectively. The optimal cut-off values of the number of active (VDAS15) body areas were >0 areas for slightly worse, >2 areas for moderately worse and >7 for much worse. For VDIS15, the cut-off values for slightly improved and moderately improved were >0 and >1. For VDAS60 and VDIS60, the cut-off points were >0.5, >3, >9.5 and >0.5 and >1.5, respectively. The results should be interpreted with caution in patients with extensive vitiligo due to the rather limited disease extent of the included patient population (VESplus (median: 3.2%)). Conclusions: This research will aid in the development of more detailed international definitions.

Combined Results of Two Cross-Sectional Surveys on the Participation in Clinical Trials and the e-Consent Procedure in the Landscape of Haematology.

Despite the motivation of oncology patients to take part in clinical trials, only a minority of them are enrolled in clinical trials. Implementation of new practical procedures can become a barrier that withholds patients from participating in clinical trials. Treating physicians are crucial in augmenting trial accrual. The drivers that promote physicians to allocate patients for clinical trials need further assessment. We conducted two separate cross-sectional surveys, addressing patients with a haematological disease in one survey and haematologists in another survey. The patient survey was filled out by 420 patients. Significant relationships between the willingness to participate in a trial and trial knowledge (p < 0.001) and between doctor-patient relationship and participation willingness (p = 0.007) were noted. Patients above 60 years were less willing to use an electronic consent procedure vs. patients younger than 60 (p < 0.001). The physician questionnaire was completed by 42 participants of whom most (83%) were active in and (94%) motivated for clinical trials. Apart from the patient benefit and scientific interest, prestige was an equal motivator closely followed by financial remunerations. First goal was not to harm the patient. Our study confirms the high willingness of patients for trial participation and the need to rethink the structure of trial organisation. The e-consent procedure is not the method preferred by most patients above 60 years old.