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.

Understanding treatment burden in hemophilia: development and validation of the Hemophilia Treatment Experience Measure (Hemo-TEM).

BACKGROUND: To capture the broad range of treatment burden issues experienced by adolescent and adult people with hemophilia (PWH), the Hemophilia Treatment Experience Measure (Hemo-TEM) was developed. We describe the development of this new hemophilia-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure including concept elicitation, cognitive debriefing, and psychometric validation. RESULTS: Concept elicitation interviews were conducted with 5 clinical experts and 30 adult PWH in the United States (US). The qualitative analysis of these interviews and a review of the literature informed the PRO measure development. The project team reviewed concept endorsement rates and generated a 27-item preliminary version of the Hemo-TEM. Cognitive debriefing interviews were conducted to ensure participant understanding and item relevance in samples of (adolescent (n = 20) and adult (n = 14)) PWH in the US. The refined, validation-ready version of the Hemo-TEM included 30 items. Lastly, data from 3 clinical trials comprised the 4 analysis sets used for the psychometric validation with a sample size of N = 88. Item reduction dropped 4 items resulting in a final 26-item measure. Factor analysis generated 5 domains in the Hemo-TEM [injection difficulties (3 items), physical impact (6 items), treatment bother (7 items), interference with daily life (4 items), and emotional impact (6 items)] and a total score. All scores were reliable [internally consistent (0.84-0.88)]. For convergent validity, with the exception of one domain, all hypothesized associations were met. Preliminary sensitivity to change effect sizes were between - 0.30 and - 0.70. Meaningful change thresholds ranged from 6 points (physical impact and emotional impact) to 10 points (treatment bother) with 8 points for the Hemo-TEM total score. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from the concept elicitation, cognitive debriefing, and psychometric validation phases provide evidence that the Hemo-TEM is a well-designed, valid, and reliable measure of the burden of hemophilia treatment, including treatment impact on adolescent and adult PWH.

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.

Psychometric Validation of the Growth Hormone Deficiency-Child Treatment Burden Measure (GHD-CTB) and the Growth Hormone Deficiency-Parent Treatment Burden Measure (GHD-PTB).

PURPOSE: The aim was to evaluate the measurement properties of the Growth Hormone Deficiency-Child Treatment Burden Measure-Child (GHD-CTB-Child), a patient-reported outcome (PRO) for children aged 9 to < 13 years; the Growth Hormone Deficiency-Child Treatment Burden Measure-Observer (GHD-CTB-Observer), an observer-reported outcome (ObsRO) version completed by parents/guardians of children with growth hormone deficiency (GHD) aged 4 to < 9 years; and the Growth Hormone Deficiency-Parent Treatment Burden Measure (GHD-PTB), a PRO that assesses the treatment burden of parents/guardians living with children with GHD aged 4 to < 13 years. METHODS: A non-interventional, multi-center, clinic-based study across 30 private practice and large institutional sites in the United States and the United Kingdom was conducted. The sample consisted of 145 pre-pubertal children aged 9 to < 13 years at enrollment with a physician confirmed GHD diagnosis as well as 98 parents/guardians of pre-pubertal younger children aged 4 to < 9 years at enrollment with a physician confirmed GHD diagnosis. The child sample consisted of 59 treatment-naïve children (no prior exposure to growth hormone [GH] therapy; were starting GH treatment at study start per standard of care) and 184 children already maintained on treatment for at least 6 months. At baseline, all study participants completed a paper validation battery including all measures needed to conduct the validation analyses. Follow-up assessments with children in the maintenance group and their caregiver/parent were conducted approximately 2 weeks post-baseline to evaluate test-retest reproducibility. To evaluate sensitivity to change and meaningful change thresholds, treatment-naïve participants in both child and parent/guardian populations were assessed within 1 week of report of minimal improvement between week 3 and week 11 and at week 12. Psychometric analyses were implemented following an a priori statistical analysis plan. RESULTS: Factor analyses confirmed the a priori conceptual domains and Overall score for each measure (GHD-CTB-Child and GHD-CTB-Observer domains: Physical, Emotional Well-being, and Interference; GHD-PTB domains: Emotional Well-being and Interference). Internal consistency was acceptable for all measures (Cronbach's alpha > 0.70). Test-retest reliability was acceptable for the Physical, Emotional, and Overall domains of the GHD-CTB versions, and the Emotional and Overall domains of the GHD-PTB (intraclass correlation coefficient above 0.70). All but one of the convergent validity hypotheses for the GHD-CTB versions and all hypotheses for the GHD-PTB were proven (r > 0.40). Known-groups validity hypotheses were significant for length of time to administer the injections in the GHD-CTB versions (p < 0.001 for Physical, Emotional, and Overall, and p < 0.01 for Interference) and whether parents/guardians versus child gave the injections more often for the Emotional domain of the GHD-PTB (p < 0.05). Associated effect sizes ranged from -0.27 to -0.57 for GHD-CTB versions and from -0.74 to -0.69 for the GHD-PTB, indicating that the measures are sensitive to change. Anchor-based patient and parent/guardian ratings of severity suggest preliminary meaningful change thresholds (GHD-CTB: 6 points for Physical score, 9 for Emotional, and 6 for Interference; GHD-PTB: 10 points for Emotional and 6 for Interference scores). CONCLUSIONS: The psychometric properties of the GHD-CTB-Child, GHD-CTB-Observer, and GHD-PTB support the validity of their use as PRO and ObsRO measures to capture the experiences associated with treatment burden for children with GHD and their parents/guardians in both clinical and research settings. The Clinicaltrials.gov registration number NCT02580032 was first posted October 20, 2015.

Conversations and Reactions Around Severe Hypoglycemia (CRASH) Study: Results From People With Diabetes and Caregivers in the United States.

A survey was conducted in eight countries to examine conversations around, and experiences and treatments during, severe hypoglycemia among people with diabetes and caregivers of people with diabetes. This article reports a subgroup analysis from the United States involving 219 people with diabetes and 210 caregivers. Most respondents (79.7%) did not use professional health care services during their most recent severe hypoglycemic event, and 40.3% did not report the event to their health care providers at a subsequent follow-up visit. Hypoglycemic events left respondents feeling scared (70.9%), unprepared (42.7%), and helpless (46.9%). These clinically important psychosocial impacts on people with diabetes and caregivers underscore the need for conversations about hypoglycemia prevention and management.

Interpreting Evaluating Respiratory SymptomsTM in COPD Diary Scores in Clinical Trials: Terminology, Methods, and Recommendations.

Accurately interpreting scores on patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures is essential to understanding and communicating treatment benefit. Over the years, terminology and methods for developing recommendations for PRO score interpretation in clinical trials have evolved, leading to some confusion in the field. The phrase "minimal clinically important difference (MCID)" has been simplified to "minimal important difference (MID)" and use of responder thresholds to interpret statistically significant treatment effects has increased. Anchor-based derivation methods continue to be the standard, with specific variations preferred by regulatory authorities for drug development programs. In the midst of these changes, the Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms™ in COPD (E-RS:COPD) was developed and qualified for use as an endpoint in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) drug development programs. This paper summarizes the evolution of terminology and method preferences for the development of recommendations for interpreting scores from PRO measures used in clinical trials, and how these changes are reflected in the E-RS:COPD recommendations. The intent is to add clarity to discussions around PRO endpoints and facilitate use of the E-RS:COPD as a key efficacy endpoint in clinical trials of COPD.

Comparing patient global impression of severity and patient global impression of change to evaluate test-retest reliability of depression, non-small cell lung cancer, and asthma measures.

PURPOSE: Score reproducibility is an important measurement property of fit-for-purpose patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. It is commonly assessed via test-retest reliability, and best evaluated with a stable participant sample, which can be challenging to identify in diseases with highly variable symptoms. To provide empirical evidence comparing the retrospective (patient global impression of change [PGIC]) and current state (patient global impression of severity [PGIS]) approaches to identifying a stable subgroup for test-retest analyses, 3 PRO Consortium working groups collected data using both items as anchor measures. METHODS: The PGIS was completed on Day 1 and Day 8 + 3 for the depression and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) studies, and daily for the asthma study and compared between Day 3 and 10. The PGIC was completed on the final day in each study. Scores were compared using an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for participants who reported "no change" between timepoints for each anchor. RESULTS: ICCs using the PGIS "no change" group were higher for depression (0.84 vs. 0.74), nighttime asthma (0.95 vs. 0.53) and daytime asthma (0.86 vs. 0.68) compared to the PGIC "no change" group. ICCs were similar for NSCLC (PGIS: 0.87; PGIC: 0.85). CONCLUSION: When considering anchor measures to identify a stable subgroup for test-retest reliability analyses, current state anchors perform better than retrospective anchors. Researchers should carefully consider the type of anchor selected, the time period covered, and should ensure anchor content is consistent with the target measure concept, as well as inclusion of both current and retrospective anchor measures.

Responsiveness and meaningful change thresholds of the Living with Pulmonary Fibrosis (L-PF) questionnaire Dyspnoea and Cough scores in patients with progressive fibrosing interstitial lung diseases.

BACKGROUND: The Living with Pulmonary Fibrosis (L-PF) questionnaire assesses symptoms and quality of life in patients with fibrosing interstitial lung diseases (ILDs). Its Dyspnoea and Cough domains, whose items' responses are based on a 24-hour recall, have scores ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating greater symptom severity. We evaluated the ability of these domain scores to detect change and estimated their meaningful change thresholds in patients with progressive fibrosing ILDs. METHODS: The INBUILD trial enrolled subjects with progressive fibrosing ILDs other than idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. The L-PF questionnaire was completed at baseline and week 52. The responsiveness of the Dyspnoea and Cough scores was evaluated by comparing changes in these scores with 52-week changes in three anchors: forced vital capacity % predicted and two self-reported items, one for global physical health and one for global quality of life. We used a triangulation approach including anchor-based and distribution-based methods to estimate meaningful change thresholds. RESULTS: The analyses included 542 subjects with an L-PF Dyspnoea score at baseline and week 52, and 538 subjects with an L-PF Cough score at baseline and week 52. The L-PF Dyspnoea and Cough scores were responsive to change over 52 weeks. Triangulation of anchor-based and distribution-based estimates resulted in meaningful change thresholds of 6 to 7 points for the L-PF Dyspnoea score and 4 to 5 points for the L-PF Cough score to differentiate subjects who were stable or improved from those who deteriorated. CONCLUSION: These analyses support the responsiveness, one aspect of validity, of the L-PF Dyspnoea and Cough domains scores as measures of symptom severity in patients with progressive fibrosing ILDs. Estimates for meaningful change thresholds in these domain scores may be of value in interpreting the effects of interventions in these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02999178.

The psychometric properties of the King's Brief Interstitial Lung Disease questionnaire and thresholds for meaningful treatment response in patients with progressive fibrosing interstitial lung diseases.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of fully validated patient-reported outcome measures for progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease (ILD). We aimed to validate the King's Brief Interstitial Lung Disease (K-BILD) questionnaire for measuring health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in these patients. We also aimed to estimate the meaningful change threshold for interpreting stabilisation of HRQoL as a clinical end-point in progressive fibrosing ILD, where the current goal of treatment is disease stability and slowing progression. METHODS: This analysis evaluated data from 663 patients with progressive fibrosing ILD other than idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis from the INBUILD trial. Validation of the measurement properties was assessed for internal consistency, test-retest reliability, construct validity, known-groups validity and responsiveness. We calculated meaningful change thresholds for treatment response using anchor-based (within-patient) and distribution-based methods. RESULTS: K-BILD had strong internal consistency (Cronbach's α was 0.94 for total score, 0.88 for breathlessness and activities, 0.91 for psychological, and 0.79 for chest symptoms). The test-retest reliability intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.74 for K-BILD total score. K-BILD demonstrated weak correlations with forced vital capacity (FVC) percent predicted. Known-groups validity showed significant differences in K-BILD scores for patient groups with different disease severity based on use of supplemental oxygen or baseline FVC % pred (≤70% or >70%). We estimated a meaningful change threshold of ≥ -2 units for K-BILD total score for defining patients who remain stable/improved versus those with progressive deterioration. CONCLUSIONS: Our results validate K-BILD as a tool for assessing HRQoL in patients with progressive fibrosing ILD and set a meaningful change threshold of ≥ -2 units for K-BILD total score.

Consistently High Agreement Between Independent Raters of Niemann-Pick Type C1 Clinical Severity Scale in Phase 2/3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Niemann-Pick disease, type C1 (NPC1) is a rare neurodegenerative genetic disorder characterized by impaired intracellular transport of cholesterol and other lipids. The Niemann-Pick Disease, type C1 Severity Scale (NPC-SS) was developed to quantify neurological progression of NPC; it is used to monitor the natural history of disease progression and assess response to treatment. The objective of the study was to examine the interrater reliability of the NPC-SS in a phase 2/3 trial. METHODS: Study data were from a multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind trial of adrabetadex in 56 subjects with NPC1. Clinical data recorded at each study site were distributed to two independent blinded central raters to generate a severity score. A composite four-item score was utilized as the primary clinical study end point, whereas a five-item focused score has been utilized in other NPC1 trials. Interrater reliability was assessed using two-way mixed models for instrument stability, Cohen kappa, weighted kappa, and percent agreement for the four- and five-item scores. RESULTS: The frequency distribution and mean (S.D.) of the NPC-SS domain assessments by the raters were almost identical. Evaluation at the patient visit level showed wide variability between visits; however, weighted kappa calculation provided a lower variability between visits. The average kappa coefficients ranged between 0.69 and 0.89, indicating good to very good agreement between raters. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the NPC-SS, including derived four- and five-item composite scores, as reliable measures for use in a clinical trial setting.

Use of the Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms™ in COPD as an Outcome Measure in Clinical Trials: A Rapid Systematic Review.

RATIONALE: Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) struggle with respiratory symptoms that impair their daily activities and quality of life. Understanding a treatment's ability to relieve symptoms requires precise assessment. The Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RSTM:COPD) was developed to quantify respiratory symptoms in clinical trials. This study aimed to better understand how trials use this patient-reported outcome measure as an endpoint, as well as its responsiveness and performance relative to other outcome measures. OBJECTIVES: To summarize the use of the E-RS:COPD in pharmacological trials since its qualification by regulatory authorities. METHODS: A rapid systematic literature review, using key biomedical databases to identify English language full-text publications of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) that included the E-RS:COPD as an endpoint (2010-2020). Two investigators independently screened the publications and extracted data. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 219 screened records, 28 full-text publications were included, and data from 17 reporting 20 unique double-blind RCTs were synthesized. The E-RS:COPD was positioned as a primary or secondary endpoint in six publications (35%), and served as an exploratory or additional endpoint in 11 (65%). Statistically significant E-RS:COPD treatment effects versus placebo/comparator were found in 13 of the 14 publications reporting symptom results. E-RS:COPD effects corresponded well with other outcome measures (e.g., St George's Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ] and forced expiratory volume 1 second [FEV1]). Two publications reported the number of responders. CONCLUSIONS: E-RS:COPD is sensitive to treatment effects in clinical trials testing drug therapies. Presentation of trial results should include responder analyses to facilitate interpretation and application of results.

Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Symptom Assessment Questionnaire: Psychometric Performance and Regulatory Qualification of a Novel Patient-Reported Symptom Measure.

BACKGROUND: The Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (NSCLC-SAQ) was developed to incorporate the patient's perspective into evaluation of clinical benefit in advanced non-small cell lung cancer trials and meet regulatory expectations for doing so. Qualitative evidence supported 7 items covering 5 symptom concepts. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated measurement properties of the NSCLC-SAQ's items, overall scale, and total score. METHODS: In this observational cross-sectional study, a purposive sample of patients with clinician-diagnosed advanced non-small cell lung cancer, initiating or undergoing treatment, provided sociodemographic information and completed the NSCLC-SAQ, National Comprehensive Cancer Network/Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Lung Symptom Index (FLSI-17), and a Patient Global Impression of Severity item. Rasch analyses, factor analyses, and assessments of construct validity and reliability were completed. RESULTS: The 152 participants had a mean age of 64 years, 57% were women, and 87% where White. The majority were Stage IV (83%), 51% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 (32% performance status 0 and 17% performance status 2), and 33% were treatment naïve. Rasch analyses showed ordered thresholds for response options. Factor analyses demonstrated that items could be combined for a total score. Internal consistency (Cronbach  α = 0.78) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.87) were quite satisfactory. NSCLC-SAQ total score correlation was 0.83 with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network/Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Lung Symptom Index-17. The NSCLC-SAQ was able to differentiate between symptom severity levels and performance status (both P values < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The NSCLC-SAQ generated highly reliable scores with substantial evidence of construct validity. The Food and Drug Administration's qualification supports the NSCLC-SAQ as a measure of symptoms in drug development. Further evaluation is needed on its longitudinal measurement properties and interepretation of meaningful within-patient score change. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2021; 82:XXX-XXX).

The Living with Pulmonary Fibrosis questionnaire in progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease.

The Living with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (L-IPF) questionnaire was developed with substantial input from patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) to assess symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Because IPF is the prototypical chronic fibrosing interstitial lung disease (ILD) with a progressive phenotype, we expanded applicability of the L-IPF by deleting the word "idiopathic", creating the L-PF (Living with Pulmonary Fibrosis) questionnaire, and then assessed its relevance among patients with progressive fibrosing ILDs in one-to-one interviews. Patients in the USA and Germany with any progressive fibrosing ILD other than IPF were asked about their disease and symptoms, completed the 44-item L-PF questionnaire (comprising two modules that assess symptoms and impacts of disease) and then answered a series of debriefing questions. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and coded for qualitative content analysis. 20 patients were interviewed, but time constraints meant not all were asked about all items. The most frequent diagnoses were rheumatoid arthritis-associated ILD (25%) and mixed connective tissue disease-associated ILD (20%). Almost all patients endorsed the symptoms assessed by the L-PF: shortness of breath (19 out of 20 patients), cough (19 out of 20) and fatigue (18 out of 20). Most patients endorsed impacts of progressive fibrosing ILD on activities of daily living, physical well-being, sleep, emotional well-being, and social aspects of their lives. Most patients had an overall positive impression of the Symptoms module and understood items as intended. All seven patients asked understood the items of the Impacts module. The L-PF contains concepts relevant and important to patients with progressive fibrosing ILD, and items are understood as intended.

Psychometric Validation of the Growth Hormone Deficiency-Child Impact Measure (GHD-CIM).

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to perform psychometric testing of the Growth Hormone Deficiency-Child Impact Measure (GHD-CIM): a patient-reported outcome (PRO) for children with GHD aged 9 to < 13 years and an observer-reported outcome (ObsRO) for parents/guardians of children who are unable to answer for themselves. METHODS: A non-interventional, multicenter, clinic-based study was conducted in 30 private-practice and large institutional sites in the US and the UK. Psychometric analyses were conducted following an a priori validation statistical analysis plan. RESULTS: A preliminary examination of the data determined a PRO version for children aged 9 to < 13 years was not psychometrically sound and therefore the decision was made to have only an ObsRO measure of the GHD-CIM, which would be suitable for children aged 4 to < 13 years. The GHD-CIM ObsRO validity analyses included 98 parents/guardians. Factor analyses identified three domains: Physical Functioning (PHYS), Social Well-Being (SWB), and Emotional Well-Being (EWB). Internal consistency reliability was acceptable for all domains and for the overall score (Cronbach's alpha > 0.70), as was test-retest reliability for the SWB, EWB and overall (above 0.70). At least one convergent validity hypotheses for each domain and overall was proven (r > 0.40). Known-groups validity hypotheses for the EWB and SWB domains were significant (p < 0.05). Associated effect sizes ranged from - 0.40 to - 0.58, indicating that the GHD-CIM is sensitive to change. Anchor-based patient and clinician ratings of severity of disease suggest a preliminary minimally important difference of 5 points for the overall score, and 5 for PHYS, 7 for EWB, and 5 for SWB. CONCLUSIONS: The GHD-CIM ObsRO was found to be a reliable and valid measure to assess disease-specific functioning, which will provide a more complete patient-centric picture to the growth hormone therapy experience in children. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02580032, first posted 20 October 2015.

Pain assessment for chronic lower back pain: performance of the PAL-S and PAL-I patient-reported measures for symptoms and impacts.

Objective: The Patient Assessment for Low Back Pain-Symptoms (PAL-S) and the Patient Assessment for Low Back Pain-Impacts (PAL-I) were developed to incorporate patient perspective of treatment benefit in chronic low back pain (cLBP) trials. This study documents psychometric measurement properties of the PAL-S and PAL-I.Methods: In this multicenter, observational study, eligible participants clinically diagnosed with cLBP provided sociodemographic information and completed PAL measures and other patient-reported outcome measures of pain and/or disability. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA), construct validity, and reliability were assessed.Results: The 104 participants were 61% female, 89% white, and mean age of 55 years; mean cLBP duration was 11.4 (range 0-47) years. Using painDETECT scores, 36.5% reported small likelihood of neuropathic pain, 30.8% reported unclear likelihood, and 32.7% reported definite likelihood. Persistent pain with pain attacks was reported by 38.5% of participants. CFA confirmed single components with adequate fit indices. Cronbach's alpha was 0.83 (PAL-S) and 0.87 (PAL-I), indicating reliable scales. Intraclass correlation coefficients (test-retest reproducibility, n = 44) were 0.81 (PAL-S) and 0.85 (PAL-I). PAL-S score correlation was 0.49 with Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and 0.77 with Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI). PAL-I correlated at 0.73 with RMDQ and -0.60 with Medical Outcomes Study (MOS)-36 Bodily Pain. Both measures significantly differentiated between pain intensity levels (based on numeric response scale) and painDETECT groups.Conclusion: The PAL-S and PAL-I generated highly reliable scores with substantial evidence of construct validity. Routine use of these measures in treatment trials will enhance comparability of LBP-related symptom and impact results, including patient perspective of treatment benefit.

Symptoms of Major Depressive Disorder Scale: Performance of a Novel Patient-Reported Symptom Measure.

BACKGROUND: The Symptoms of Major Depressive Disorder Scale (SMDDS) was expressly developed on the basis of qualitative data to directly incorporate patients' voices into evaluation of treatment benefit in major depressive disorder (MDD) clinical trials. OBJECTIVES: To collect quantitative data necessary to refine/optimize the SMDDS and document its psychometric properties. METHODS: In this multicenter, observational study, participants with clinically diagnosed MDD completed questionnaires in 2 waves. Wave 1 was designed to refine the SMDDS using Rasch measurement evaluations and item reduction analyses. On a subset of wave 1 subjects, 7 to 12 months later, wave 2 further examined item performance and measurement properties. Exploratory factor analyses and assessments of construct validity and reliability (internal consistency and reproducibility) were completed. RESULTS: Using wave 1 data (N = 315; females = 71%, white = 81%, mean age = 44 years), the SMDDS was revised from 36 to 16 items. The Rasch item threshold map indicated that all but 1 item (suicidal ideation) were appropriately ordered. The 207 wave 2 participants were 74% females, 82% white, with a mean age of 45 years. The exploratory factor analyses resulted in a single component (all standardized factor loadings >0.46). Cronbach α was 0.93 and the 7-day test-retest intraclass correlation coefficient (n = 93) was 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.77-0.89). SMDDS scores discriminated between MDD severity levels. CONCLUSIONS: The 16-item SMDDS generated highly reliable scores with substantial evidence of construct validity. On the basis of the evidence of appropriate content validity and sound psychometric performance, the Food and Drug Administration qualified the SMDDS as an outcome measure to support exploratory efficacy endpoints in MDD clinical trials.

The STatin Adverse Treatment Experience Survey: Experience of patients reporting side effects of statin therapy.

BACKGROUND: It is important to understand patients' experiences of statin-associated adverse effects to potentially identify those at risk for stopping treatment. OBJECTIVE: The goal of the STatin Adverse Treatment Experience survey was to describe patients' experiences after reporting ≥1 recent statin-associated adverse event and identify opportunities to improve adherence and outcomes. METHODS: The survey was developed in 3 stages: qualitative item development, pilot evaluation of initial item performance, and quantitative evaluation using a large commercial sample. Respondents with self-reported high cholesterol who had taken a statin in the past 2 years and experienced ≥1 statin-associated symptom in the past 6 months were included (N = 1500). RESULTS: Mean age was 58 years, 40.3% were men, and 43.2% had tried ≥2 statins. Many had clinical comorbidities associated with increased risk for cardiovascular disease (atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, 22.5%; diabetes, 25.8%; hypertension, 56.0%). The most important patient-reported reasons for continuing current statin therapy (n = 1168; 77.9%) were avoiding a heart attack or stroke, lowering cholesterol, and doctor recommendation. Being bothered by and not being able to tolerate side effects were the main reasons respondents discontinued statins (n = 332; 22.1%). Respondents who discontinued statins reported significantly higher mean Symptom Severity (10.6 vs 8.7, P < .001) and Impact Severity scores (11.8 vs 9.8, P < .001) compared with those who continued. CONCLUSION: The STatin Adverse Treatment Experience survey highlights the importance of patients' adverse experiences with statins and how symptom and impact scores affect decisions to continue or discontinue therapy. These data provide a foundation to increase providers' awareness of statin tolerability from the patient's perspective and encourage benefit-risk discussions.

Assessing the Impact of Growth Hormone Deficiency (GHD) in Adults: Interpreting Change of the Treatment-Related Impact Measure-Adult Growth Hormone Deficiency (TRIM-AGHD).

BACKGROUND: This study's purpose was to assess the minimal important difference (MID) for the Treatment-Related Impact Measure-Adult Growth Hormone Deficiency (TRIM-AGHD), a patient-reported outcome measure assessing growth hormone deficiency (GHD) impacts. The measure was demonstrated to have adequate psychometric measurement properties, and be reliable and valid. For scores to be interpretable, the TRIM-AGHD must be responsive to treatment benefit and the MID in scores quantified. METHODS: A prospective, non-interventional, observational, clinic-based survey study of naïve-to-treatment adult GHD patients (N = 98) was conducted. Key assessments were at baseline and follow-up (between 4 and approximately 8 weeks), with weekly telephone monitoring post-baseline (last n = 34 patients). Responsiveness was evaluated using the effect size of change scores from baseline to follow-up. MID estimates were derived from distribution-based (half standard deviation [0.5 SD], standard error of measurement [SEm]) and anchor-based methods (patient global rating of change [PGRC]) using change scores from baseline to initial report of minimal improvement in GHD severity. Findings from each method were converged to establish an acceptable MID. RESULTS: Patients were mean age 49.7 years, 65.6% female, and 76.0% Caucasian. The TRIM-AGHD was highly responsive to treatment with the total score effect size being 1.38. For the total score, the 0.5 SD was 8.09 and the SEm was 2.66. The difference found using the PGRC was 20.43. The converged MID value for the total score was 10 points. CONCLUSIONS: The TRIM-AGHD is a highly responsive measure assessing AGHD treatment impacts. A 10-point change score is considered a clinically meaningful improvement.

Mixed-methods development of a new patient-reported outcome instrument for chronic low back pain: part 2-The Patient Assessment for Low Back Pain-Impacts (PAL-I).

We describe qualitative and quantitative development and preliminary validation of the Patient Assessment for Low Back Pain-Impacts (PAL-I), a patient-reported outcome measure for use in chronic low back pain (cLBP) clinical trials. Concept elicitation and cognitive interviews (qualitative methods) were used to identify and refine symptom concepts. Classical test theory and Rasch measurement theory (quantitative methods) were used to evaluate item-level and scale-level performance of the PAL-I using an iterative approach between qualitative and quantitative methods. Patients with cLBP participated in concept elicitation interviews (N = 43), cognitive interviews (N = 38), and assessment of paper-to-electronic format equivalence (N = 8). A web-based sample of self-reported patients with cLBP participated in quantitative studies to evaluate preliminary (N = 598) and revised (n = 401) drafts and patients with physician-diagnosed cLBP (N = 45) participated in preliminary validation of the PAL-I. The instrument contained 9 items describing cLBP impacts (walking, sitting, standing, lifting, sleep, social activities, travelling, climbing, and body movements). Item-level performance, scale structure, and scoring seemed to be appropriate. One-week test-retest reproducibility was acceptable (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.88 [95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.94]). Convergent validity was demonstrated with PAL-I total score and Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (Pearson correlation 0.82), MOS-36 Physical Functioning (-0.71), and MOS-36 Bodily Pain (-0.71). Individual item scores and total score discriminated between numeric rating scale tertile groups and painDETECT categories. Interpretation of paper and electronic administration modes was equivalent. The PAL-I demonstrated content validity and is potentially useful to assess treatment benefit in clinical trials of cLBP therapies.

Mixed-methods development of a new patient-reported outcome instrument for chronic low back pain: part 1-the Patient Assessment for Low Back Pain - Symptoms (PAL-S).

We describe the mixed-methods (qualitative and quantitative) development and preliminary validation of the Patient Assessment for Low Back Pain-Symptoms (PAL-S), a patient-reported outcome measure for use in chronic low back pain (cLBP) clinical trials. Qualitative methods (concept elicitation and cognitive interviews) were used to identify and refine symptom concepts and quantitative methods (classical test theory and Rasch measurement theory) were used to evaluate item- and scale-level performance of the measure using an iterative approach. Patients with cLBP participated in concept elicitation interviews (N = 43), cognitive interviews (N = 38), and interview-based assessment of paper-to-electronic mode equivalence (N = 8). A web-based sample of patients with self-reported cLBP participated in quantitative studies to evaluate preliminary (N = 598) and revised (n = 401) drafts and a physician-diagnosed cohort of patients with cLBP (N = 45) participated in preliminary validation of the measure. The PAL-S contained 14 items describing symptoms (overall pain, sharp, prickling, sensitive, tender, radiating, shocking, shooting, burning, squeezing, muscle spasms, throbbing, aching, and stiffness). Item-level performance, scale structure, and scoring seemed to be appropriate. One-week test-retest reproducibility was acceptable (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.81 [95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.91]). Convergent validity was demonstrated with total score and MOS-36 Bodily Pain (Pearson correlation -0.79), Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (0.73), Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (0.67), and MOS-36 Physical Functioning (-0.65). Individual item scores and total score discriminated between numeric rating scale tertile groups and painDETECT categories. Respondent interpretation of paper and electronic administration modes was equivalent. The PAL-S has demonstrated content validity and is potentially useful to assess treatment benefit in cLBP clinical trials.