Patient and Clinician Preferences for Biologic Treatments for Severe Uncontrolled Asthma: A Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE).

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the preferences of patients with asthma and asthma-treating clinicians for attributes of biologic treatments, to compare patients' and clinicians' preferences, and to better understand the reasons for their preferences. METHODS: Adults with moderate-to-severe asthma and clinicians who treat asthma in the US completed a cross-sectional, online survey including a discrete choice experiment (DCE) that consisted of seven attributes spanning treatment efficacy, risk and convenience. Marginal utilities were estimated using a mixed logit model, and relative attribute importance scores calculated. Clinicians were also asked about the value of biomarker agnostic biologic treatments. The survey was followed by qualitative interviews targeting a sub-sample of survey participants, in which the rationale behind their survey responses was discussed. RESULTS: In the DCE, both patients and clinicians placed the most importance on exacerbation and hospitalization rate reduction, and risk of injection site reaction. Patients valued location of administration more than clinicians. Rationale for individual-level preferences varied, with patients and clinicians reporting their preference depended on event frequency and anticipated quality of life impacts. Clinicians mentioned compliance and financial impacts, while patients mentioned personal experience, particularly around site reactions. Most patients and clinicians would value a biomarker agnostic asthma treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Asthma treatment preferences are largely driven by treatment efficacy and minimizing the risk of site reactions, although preferences differ between patients and clinicians across other attributes, highlighting the need for shared decision-making and individualized care.

Characterizing health-related quality of life and identifying disease predictors among patients suspected of having long COVID: an analysis of COMET-ICE clinical trial data.

Introduction: Long COVID affects health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Here, we investigate the extent to which symptoms experienced during the acute phase of COVID-19 are significant predictors of the presence of long COVID at 12 weeks. Methods: Post-hoc analysis of COMET-ICE trial data, which assessed sotrovimab vs. placebo for treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 among high-risk patients. Patient-reported outcome measures were completed during the trial, including the inFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome Plus (FLU-PRO Plus), the 12-Item Short Form (SF-12) Hybrid questionnaire, and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire: General Health (WPAI:GH). COVID-19 symptoms and impacts (measured by the FLU-PRO Plus) and HRQoL (measured by SF-12 Hybrid and WPAI:GH) were compared between the acute phase (Days 1-21 and 29) and long-COVID phase (at Week 12) among patients with and without long COVID based on COMET-ICE data. Subgroups experiencing long COVID were derived using "All," "Returning," and "Persisting" symptomatic definitions. Long-COVID predictors were identified using a multivariate logistic regression model; odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were calculated. Results: Long-COVID subgroups had significantly higher baseline scores for most FLU-PRO Plus domains and Total Score compared with the non-long-COVID group. WPAI:GH and SF-12 Hybrid scores generally showed significantly more impairment for the long-COVID subgroups at baseline and Week 12 vs. the non-long-COVID group. In the univariate analyses, all FLU-PRO Plus domains were significant predictors of long COVID (all p < 0.05), with the exception of the Sense domain. Older age increased the risk of long COVID (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.04, p < 0.05). Non-White patients were significantly less likely to have long COVID by the Returning and Persisting definitions vs. White patients (all p < 0.05). In the multivariate analysis, higher scores for the Nose domain (ORs 3.39-5.60, all p < 0.01) and having COPD (ORs 3.75-6.34, all p < 0.05) were significant long-COVID predictors. Conclusion: Patients who progressed to long COVID had higher symptom severity during the acute disease phase and showed significantly greater negative impact on HRQoL over an extended time period from initial infection through at least the subsequent 3 months. The FLU-PRO Plus Nose domain and having COPD were significant predictors of long COVID.

Treatment preferences of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma in the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, Germany, France, and Spain: results from a discrete choice experiment.

Introduction: Newer treatment options for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) with efficacy and safety profiles that differ from traditional therapies have facilitated personalized management strategies to optimize patient outcomes. In the context of such personalized management, understanding how treatment characteristics influence patients' preferences is essential. This study assessed patients' preferences for RRMM treatment attributes and determined trade-offs between potential benefits, administration procedures, and adverse effects. Methods: Patients' preferences were evaluated using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Patients with RRMM who reported failing two lines of anti-myeloma treatment (immunomodulatory agent and a proteasome inhibitor [PI]) or ≥ 3 lines (including ≥1 PI, immunomodulatory agent, or anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody), were recruited across the US, UK, Italy, Germany, France, and Spain. DCE attributes and levels were identified using a targeted literature review, a review of clinical data for relevant RRMM treatments, qualitative patient interviews, and input from clinical and myeloma patient experts. The DCE was administered within an online survey from February-June 2022. Preference data were analyzed using an error-component logit model and willingness to make trade-offs for potential benefits, and relative attribute importance scores were calculated. Results: Overall, 296 patients from the US (n = 100), UK (n = 49), Italy (n = 45), Germany (n = 43), France (n = 39), and Spain (n = 20) participated in the DCE. Mean (standard deviation) age was 63.8 (8.0) years, 84% had a caregiver, and patients had a median of 3 (range: 2-8) prior lines of therapy. Efficacy attributes most influenced patients' preferences, with increasing overall response rate (25-85%) and overall survival (6 months to 2 years) contributing to ~50% of treatment decision-making. Administration procedures were also considered important to patients. Avoiding individual side effects was considered relatively less important, with patients willing to tolerate increases in side effects for gains in efficacy. Patient characteristics such as rate of disease progression, sociodemographics, or clinical characteristics also influenced treatment preferences. Conclusion: Patients with RRMM were willing to tolerate increased risk of side effects for higher efficacy. Preferences and risk tolerance varied between patients, with preference patterns differing by certain patient characteristics. This highlights the importance of shared decision-making for optimal treatment selection and patient outcomes.

Estimating meaningful change for The Impact of Weight on Self-Perception (IW-SP) questionnaire among people with type 2 diabetes.

PURPOSE: The Impact of Weight on Self-perception Questionnaire (IW-SP) is a three-item patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) instrument assessing the impact of body weight on self-perception. To date no published threshold for meaningful change exists. The objective of this study was to estimate the minimal important change (MIC) for the IW-SP among people with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Responder analyses were conducted using anchor- and distribution-based approaches with existing clinical trial data (SURPASS-2). As SURPASS-2 did not include a priori anchors, a set of alternative exploratory anchors were identified based on the MICs and items from two conceptually related measures used in the trial as well as percent change in body weight. Exploratory anchors with change estimates that were sufficiently related to change in IW-SP (r ≥ 0.30) and were not redundant with other anchors were retained for the MIC analyses. The analyses were conducted in two stages (estimation = 2/3 of sample) to derive initial IW-SP MIC estimates, and a subsequent confirmation stage (remaining 1/3 of sample). RESULTS: While the most conceptually related anchors and items performed best in responsiveness analyses, all anchors resulted in a similar estimate of minimal meaningful change for the IW-SP total score: a 1-point change in raw units (1-5-point scale), corresponding to a 25-point change for transformed scores (0-100 scale). Distribution-based analyses supported these MIC estimates. Results were similar across both stages for all analyses. CONCLUSION: The MIC for the IW-SP for patients with T2D is a 25-point change on the transformed score.

The Impact of Substantial Improvements in HbA1c and Weight Loss on the Medication Preferences of People with Type 2 Diabetes.

Purpose: To quantify the preferences of people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) for treatment attributes of a glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist (RA) versus an injectable GLP-1 RA medication profile. Patients and Methods: Injection-naive people taking oral medications for T2D in the US and UK completed a web survey including a discrete choice experiment to quantify patients' preferences for five treatment attributes: delivery system, frequency of nausea, frequency of hypoglycemia, HbA1c reduction, and weight reduction. Attributes and levels were based on head-to-head clinical trial data of tirzepatide 5mg, 10mg, and 15mg versus semaglutide 1mg. Preference data were analyzed separately by country using multinomial mixed logit (MXL) models. MXL parameters were used to estimate the predicted preference for each tirzepatide dose versus semaglutide 1mg. Direct preferences for each dose of tirzepatide versus semaglutide 1mg were elicited. Results: Participants (N=620) in the US (N=301) and UK (N=319) were 50.8% and 50.5% female with mean ages of 60.7 years and 58.9 years, respectively. The order and magnitude of relative attribute importance (RAI) scores differed between countries. HbA1c reduction (26.3%) had the greatest impact on US participants' preferences, and hypoglycemia (32.8%) did among UK participants. Attribute-level marginal utility results indicated preferences for greater HbA1c improvements, the single-use pre-filled pen, lower hypoglycemia, greater weight reductions, and lower frequency of nausea. Assuming the availability of only tirzepatide or semaglutide 1mg, the predicted preference for tirzepatide (5, 10, and 15mg) in the US is 95.6% (vs 4.4% for semaglutide 1mg) and in the UK was 86.3% (vs 13.7% for semaglutide 1mg). Conclusion: HbA1c reduction, frequency of hypoglycemia, and weight reduction are key drivers of preferences among people with T2D when considering medication options. Overall, people with T2D are likely to prefer the tirzepatide over the semaglutide 1mg medication profiles.

Content validity and psychometric properties of the inFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome Plus (FLU-PRO Plus©) instrument in patients with COVID-19.

PURPOSE: A well-defined and reliable patient-reported outcome instrument for COVID-19 is important for assessing symptom severity and supporting research studies. The InFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO) instrument has been expanded to include loss of taste and smell in the FLU-PRO Plus, to comprehensively cover COVID-19 symptoms. Our studies were designed to evaluate and validate the FLU-PRO Plus among patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Two studies were conducted: (1) a qualitative, non-interventional, cross-sectional study of patients with COVID-19 involving hybrid concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews; (2) a psychometric evaluation of the measurement properties of FLU-PRO Plus, using data from COMET-ICE (COVID-19 Monoclonal antibody Efficacy Trial-Intent to Care Early). RESULTS: In the qualitative interviews (n = 30), all 34 items of the FLU-PRO Plus were considered relevant to COVID-19, and participants determined the questionnaire was easily understood, well written, and comprehensive. In the psychometric evaluation (n = 845), the internal consistency reliability of FLU-PRO Plus total score was 0.94, ranging from 0.71 to 0.90 for domain scores. Reproducibility (Day 20-21) was 0.83 for total score, with domain scores of 0.67-0.89. Confirmatory factor analysis with the novel smell/taste domain demonstrated an acceptable fit to the data. CONCLUSION: The content, reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the FLU-PRO Plus in the COVID-19 population were supported. Our results suggest that FLU-PRO Plus is a content- and psychometrically-valid, fit-for-purpose measure which is easily understood by patients. FLU-PRO Plus is a suitable PRO measure for evaluating symptoms of COVID-19 and treatment benefit directly from the patient perspective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.Gov: NCT04545060, September 10, 2020; retrospectively registered.

People With Diabetes and Caregivers Prefer Rescue Glucagon Treatment With a Wider Storage Temperature Range and a Nasal Administration, When Efficacy is Similar: A Discrete Choice Experiment in Spain.

BACKGROUND: Conventional injectable glucagon (IG) and nasal glucagon (NG), both having similar efficacy, are two options for the emergency treatment of severe hypoglycemia in Spain. This study elicited the effect of changes in key attributes on preferences for NG and IG medication profiles of people with diabetes and caregivers in Spain. METHODS: The relative attribute importance (RAI) that participants placed on glucagon preparation, preparation and administration time, delivery method, recovery time, device size, storage temperature, and headache risk was estimated from an online discrete choice experiment. In addition, patients and caregivers were presented with NG and IG profiles that included rates of successful administration; the proportion of participants choosing each profile was summarized. RESULTS: The analysis included 276 adults with diabetes (65% type 1) and 270 caregivers (49% type 1). Overall mean age was 40 years; 51% were female. The most important attributes were storage temperature (RAI [95% confidence interval] = 27.3% [22.9-32.2]) and delivery method (17.4% [13.1-21.9]). Headache risk (16.2% [11.8-20.7]), time to prepare and administer (14.5% [10.1-18.8]), glucagon preparation (11.4% [6.8-15.8]), recovery time (8.9% [4.3-13.3]), and device size (4.3% [0.3-8.8]) were also relevant. When comparing medication profiles, significantly more participants (78%) preferred NG over IG profiles (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Adults with diabetes and caregivers prefer a glucagon treatment with a higher rate of successful administration, wider storage temperature, and nasal delivery method, when efficacy is similar. Participants favored NG over conventional IG as a rescue medication for severe hypoglycemia. This information may help decision-making by payers and treatment discussions between health care professionals and patients.

Patient Preferences for Multi-Cancer Early Detection (MCED) Screening Tests.

BACKGROUND: Emerging blood-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests can detect a variety of cancer types across stages with a range of sensitivity, specificity, and ability to predict the origin of the cancer signal. However, little is known about the general US population's preferences for MCED tests. OBJECTIVE: To quantify preferences for MCED tests among US adults aged 50-80 years using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). METHODS: To quantify preferences for attributes of blood-based MCED tests, an online DCE was conducted with five attributes (true positives, false negatives, false positives, likelihood of the cancer type unknown, number of cancer types detected), among the US population aged 50-80 years recruited via online panels and social media. Data were analyzed using latent class multinomial logit models and relative attribute importance was obtained. RESULTS: Participants (N = 1700) were 54% female, mean age 63.3 years. Latent class modeling identified three classes with distinct preferences for MCED tests. The rank order of attribute importance based on relative attribute importance varied by latent class, but across all latent classes, participants preferred higher accuracy (fewer false negatives and false positives, more true positives) and screenings that detected more cancer types and had a lower likelihood of cancer type unknown. Overall, 72% of participants preferred to receive an MCED test in addition to currently recommended cancer screenings. CONCLUSIONS: While there is significant heterogeneity in cancer screening preferences, the majority of participants preferred MCED screening and the accuracy of these tests is important. While the majority of participants preferred adding an MCED test to complement current cancer screenings, the latent class analyses identified a small (16%) and specific subset of individuals who value attributes differently, with particular concern regarding false-negative and false-positive test results, who are significantly less likely to opt-in.

Pexidartinib Provides Modest Pain Relief in Patients With Tenosynovial Giant Cell Tumor: Results From ENLIVEN.

BACKGROUND: The double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 study of orally administered PLX3397 in patients with pigmented villonodular synovitis or giant cell tumor of the tendon sheath (ENLIVEN) showed that pexidartinib provides a robust objective tumor response in adults with tenosynovial giant cell tumors (TGCT) not amenable to improvement with surgery. Based on these results, in 2019, pexidartinib received accelerated approval in the United States in this population as a breakthrough therapy under an orphan drug designation. However, the ability of pexidartinib to relieve pain in ENLIVEN was not fully detailed, and the relationship between pain relief and objective tumor response was not described. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What level of pain relief was achieved by pexidartinib treatment in ENLIVEN? (2) How was pain relief related to objective tumor responses? (3) How durable was pain relief? METHODS: The current study included planned primary and exploratory assessments of patient-assessed worst pain at the site of the tumor in the ENLIVEN trial. ENLIVEN was a phase 3 randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial in which adults with TGCT not amenable to improvement with surgery received pexidartinib or placebo for 24 weeks, after which eligible patients could receive open-label pexidartinib. Of 174 patients assessed for eligibility, 121 were randomized (50% [60] to placebo, 50% [61] to pexidartinib), and 120 were given either placebo or pexidartinib (59 received placebo and 61 received pexidartinib) and were included in an intent-to-treat analysis. Fifty-nine percent (71 of 120) of the overall treated population was female, and 88% (106 of 120) were White. Mean age was 45 ± 13 years. Tumors were mostly in the lower extremities (92% [110 of 120]), most commonly in the knee (61% [73 of 120]) and ankle (18% [21 of 120]). As a secondary outcome, patients scored worst pain at the site of the tumor in the past 24 hours on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS). The primary definition of a pain response was a decrease of at least 30% in the weekly mean worst-pain NRS score and increase of less than 30% in narcotic analgesic use between baseline and week 25. Planned exploratory assessments of pain included the frequency of a pain response using alternative thresholds, including a decrease in worst-pain NRS score of 50% or more and a decrease of at least 2 points (minimum clinically important difference [MCID]), the magnitude of pain reduction between baseline and week 25, correlation between worst-pain NRS score and tumor shrinkage by RECIST 1.1 criteria, and the durability of the pain response during the open-label extension. Pain responses during the randomized portion of the trial were compared according to intention-to-treat analysis, with a one-sided threshold of p < 0.025 to reduce the risk of false-positive results. Pain assessment was complete for 59% (35 of 59) of patients in the placebo group and 54% (33 of 61) of patients in the pexidartinib group. Demographic and disease characteristics did not differ between the two treatment groups. RESULTS: A difference in the primary assessment of a pain response was not detected between pexidartinib and placebo (response percentage 31% [19 of 61] [95% CI 21% to 44%] versus 15% [9 of 59] [95% CI 8% to 27%]; one-sided p = 0.03). In the exploratory analyses, pexidartinib provided a modest improvement in pain (response percentage 26% [16 of 61] [95% CI 17% to 38%] versus 10% [6 of 59] [95% CI 5% to 20%]; one-sided p = 0.02 using the 50% threshold and 31% [19 of 61] [95% CI 21% to 44%] versus 14% [8 of 59] [95% CI 7% to 25%]; one-sided p = 0.02 using the MCID threshold). The least-squares mean change in the weekly mean worst-pain NRS score between baseline and week 25 was larger in patients treated with pexidartinib than placebo (-2.5 [95% CI -3.0 to -1.9] versus -0.3 [95% CI -0.9 to 0.3]; p < 0.001), although the mean difference between the two groups (-2.2 [95% CI -3.0 to -1.4]) was just over the MCID. Improvement in the weekly mean worst-pain NRS score correlated with the reduction in tumor size (r = 0.44; p < 0.001) and tumor volume score (r = 0.61; p < 0.001). For patients in the open-label extension, the change in the worst-pain NRS score from baseline was similar to the change at the end of the randomized portion and just above the MCID (mean -2.7 ± 2.2 after 25 weeks and -3.3 ± 1.7 after 50 weeks of receiving pexidartinib). CONCLUSION: Based on the current study, a modest reduction in pain, just larger than the MCID, may be an added benefit of pexidartinib in these patients, although the findings are insufficient to justify the routine use of pexidartinib for pain relief. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study.

The Benefits of Safely Achieving Near Normoglycemia from the Perspective of People with Type 2 Diabetes: A Quantitative Survey Study.

Purpose: To understand the perspectives of people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) on safely reaching near normoglycemia, defined as a glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) value of <6%. HbA1c indicates the average blood sugar level over the past few months. Patients and Methods: This cross-sectional online quantitative survey of people with T2D asked about the current impacts of T2D, the anticipated benefits of safely achieving near normoglycemia among participants with a current HbA1c ≥6%, or the actual benefits of safely achieving near normoglycemia among participants who had an HbA1c <6%. Participants reported on specific areas of psychological/emotional impact of T2D and the psychological/emotional benefits of achieving near normoglycemia. Results: Participants (N = 1000; United States = 500 and United Kingdom = 500) were 53.1% male and had a mean age of 62.9 years (SD = 13.3). The majority reported that the current HbA1c ≥6% (81.2%) and 49.2% had been diagnosed more than 10 years ago. The vast majority of participants (>90%) indicated that achieving near normoglycemia was meaningful, with 95% of the participants indicating that achieving near normoglycemia would be of somewhat or extreme importance to them. In total, 93.8% of participants with a current HbA1c ≥6% and 80.3% of those with a current HbA1c <6% anticipated/reported having experienced improvements as a result of achieving near normoglycemia. Among those who experienced or anticipated positive psychological/emotional impacts (n = 247), the most commonly reported impacts included less worry about future diabetes-related complications (79.8%), feeling in control over one's life (72.9%), and overall health-related quality of life (59.9%). Conclusion: Achieving near normoglycemia is both meaningful and important to the majority of people with T2D, including both those who have and those who have not experienced reaching near normoglycemia. A wide range of specific impacts, including psychological/emotional concepts, are experienced by people with T2D, many of which may be improved through achieving near normoglycemia.

The Relationship Between Patient-Reported Severity of Hair Loss and Health-Related Quality of Life and Treatment Patterns Among Patients with Alopecia Areata.

INTRODUCTION: Alopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune disease characterized by hair loss. Patients with AA experience a range of social and emotional impacts, and the lack of effective treatments and multiple affected locations can deepen the burden of illness. The objective of the current study was to assess health-related quality of life (HRQL) among patients with AA, and to evaluate the relationship between patient-reported AA severity, HRQL and treatment patterns. METHODS: A web survey was completed by participants recruited through the National Alopecia Areata Foundation. The survey included questions on disease characteristics, burden and impact (evaluated by the Skindex-16 for AA and items on work/school and sexual relationships), healthcare utilization and treatment experience. Analyses were conducted for the overall sample and by key subgroups, including AA severity and disease duration. RESULTS: A total of 1327 participants with AA completed the survey. The mean age was 39.7 [standard deviation (SD) 12.3] years and 58.4% were female. On average, participants had experienced signs and symptoms of AA for 11.5 years (SD 12.5) and were diagnosed by a healthcare provider (HCP) 10.5 (SD 12.2) years ago. Participants reported a range of severity of current scalp hair loss, including 0% (2.6%), 1-20% (39.8%), 21-49% (26.2%), 50-94% (10.2%) and 95-100% (21.3%). Participants reporting 95-100% of scalp hair missing were less likely to be currently seeing an HCP and to currently be on treatments for AA. There was a non-linear relationship between HRQL and current AA severity. Participants with 1-20% to 50-94% of current scalp hair missing reported higher symptom, functioning and emotional impacts due to AA than participants with 0% missing scalp hair and/or 95-100% missing scalp hair. Similar findings were observed for current eyebrow and eyelash severity, except for emotional impacts. CONCLUSION: Severity of AA plays an important role in understanding the burden of illness and healthcare patterns of people living with AA.

Patient and Physician Preferences for Regimen Attributes for the Treatment of HIV in the United States and Canada.

A long-acting injectable (LAI) antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimen is now available as a treatment option for virologically suppressed adults with HIV-1. This study assessed preference for a LAI regimen using an online survey of virally suppressed people living with HIV (PLWH) and physicians treating HIV in the US and Canada. Preference was elicited in a discrete choice experiment (DCE) with three choice options (switch to a LAI regimen, switch to another daily oral ART regimen, or stay on their current daily oral ART regimen) and four treatment attributes. A total of 553 PLWH and 450 physicians completed the survey. From the DCE results, 59% of PLWH were predicted to prefer a LAI over an alternative oral ART or staying on their current oral treatment, and 55-66% of physicians were predicted to recommend LAI for PLWH, depending on the treatment challenge scenario presented. PLWH indicated LAI would remove daily reminders of HIV (75%) and reduce feelings of being stigmatized (68%). A majority of PLWH and physicians preferred a LAI over oral ART to overcome treatment challenges such as daily pill burden and adherence. These benefits of LAI ART along with preferences of PLWH and physicians can help to inform ART choice.

German version of the Hypogonadism Impact of Symptoms Questionnaire: Psychometric properties and association with testosterone levels.

In German, the 'Aging Males' Symptom Scale (AMS)' is available for the assessment of symptoms of hypogonadism in men of advanced age. An English questionnaire named 'Hypogonadism Impact of Symptoms' (HIS-Q), applicable also in young males has recently been developed in the United States. We intended to: (1) evaluate the psychometric properties of the German translation of the short form of the HIS-Q (HIS-Q-SF-D); (2) explore the association of individual patient scores with their respective serum testosterone levels. The HIS-Q-SF-D was completed by 174 men attending an Andrology outpatient clinic. Test-retest reliability was excellent, with high test-retest correlations (r = 0.883) and Cronbach`s Alpha of 0.948 for the total score. Convergent validity was supported by high Spearman`s correlation between the HIS-Q-SF-D total score and the AMS total score (r = 0.817); also by the significant differences in the HIS-Q-SF-domain scores between males with total testosterone levels above and below 12 nmol/l. Therefore, the HIS-Q-SF-D shows good psychometric properties. As shown by the ROC-analyses for testosterone above and below levels of 12 nmol/l, the HIS-Q-SF-D cannot replace testosterone measurement for the establishment of the diagnosis of male hypogonadism.

Development and validation of a novel patient-reported outcome measure in people with episodic migraine and chronic migraine: The Activity Impairment in Migraine Diary.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the content validity and psychometric properties of the Activity Impairment in Migraine Diary (AIM-D). BACKGROUND: Measuring treatment effects on migraine impairment requires a psychometrically sound patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure developed consistent with U.S. Food and Drug Administration guidance. METHODS: The AIM-D was created from concepts that emerged during qualitative interviews with five clinicians experienced in treating migraine and concept elicitation (CE) interviews with 40 adults with episodic migraine (EM) or chronic migraine (CM). The initial version was refined based on three waves of cognitive interviews with 38 adults with EM or CM and input from a panel of clinical and measurement experts. The AIM-D was psychometrically evaluated using data from 316 adults with EM or CM who participated in a 13-week prospective observational study. Study participants completed PRO assessments including the AIM-D and a daily headache diary. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis were used to determine the factor structure. The reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the AIM-D were assessed. Additional PRO measures including the Patient Global Impression - Severity (PGI-S), Migraine Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire, Version 2.1 Role Function-Restrictive domain, and Headache Impact Test were used for psychometric evaluation of the AIM-D. RESULTS: Based on CE interviews with adults with migraine and input from an expert panel, activity impairment was identified as the target in the preliminary conceptual framework, which had two domains: performance of daily activities (PDAs) and physical impairment (PI). Revision of the draft AIM-D through multiple rounds of cognitive interviews and expert panel meetings resulted in a content valid 11-item version. Exploratory factor analysis supported both one- and two-domain structures for the AIM-D, which were further supported by confirmatory factor analysis (factor loadings all >0.90). The AIM-D domains (PDA and PI) and total score showed high internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha 0.95-0.97), acceptable test-retest reliability for weekly average scores (intraclass correlation coefficient >0.60 for participants with no change in PGI-S between baseline and week 2), and good convergent and known-groups validity. There was evidence of responsiveness based on changes in PGI-S score and monthly migraine days. CONCLUSION: The AIM-D is a content valid and psychometrically sound measure designed to evaluate activity impairment and is suitable for use in clinical trials of preventive treatments for EM or CM.

Results from Phase I Extension Study Assessing Pexidartinib Treatment in Six Cohorts with Solid Tumors including TGCT, and Abnormal CSF1 Transcripts in TGCT.

PURPOSE: To assess the response to pexidartinib treatment in six cohorts of adult patients with advanced, incurable solid tumors associated with colony-stimulating factor 1 receptor (CSF1R) and/or KIT proto-oncogene receptor tyrosine kinase activity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From this two-part phase I, multicenter study, pexidartinib, a small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets CSF1R, KIT, and FMS-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3), was evaluated in six adult patient cohorts (part 2, extension) with advanced solid tumors associated with dysregulated CSF1R. Adverse events, pharmacokinetics, and tumor responses were assessed for all patients; patients with tenosynovial giant cell tumor (TGCT) were also evaluated for tumor volume score (TVS) and patient-reported outcomes (PRO). CSF1 transcripts and gene expression were explored in TGCT biopsies. RESULTS: Ninety-one patients were treated: TGCT patients (n = 39) had a median treatment duration of 511 days, while other solid tumor patients (n = 52) had a median treatment duration of 56 days. TGCT patients had response rates of 62% (RECIST 1.1) and 56% (TVS) for the full analysis set. PRO assessments for pain showed improvement in patient symptoms, and 76% (19/25) of TGCT tissue biopsy specimens showed evidence of abnormal CSF1 transcripts. Pexidartinib treatment of TGCT resulted in tumor regression and symptomatic benefit in most patients. Pexidartinib toxicity was manageable over the entire study. CONCLUSIONS: These results offer insight into outcome patterns in cancers whose biology suggests use of a CSF1R inhibitor. Pexidartinib results in tumor regression in TGCT patients, providing prolonged control with an acceptable safety profile.

Measuring health-related quality of life in patients with rare disease.

BACKGROUND: There has been a growing emphasis on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) as an important outcome in rare disease drug development, although its assessment may be useful outside the drug development context, including in clinical applications or natural history studies. Central to assessing quality of life in health research is utilizing outcome measures that capture symptoms and impacts of the disease and treatment that are important and relevant to patients. Identifying and implementing valid and reliable tools to measure HRQoL in rare diseases poses unique challenges that often require creative solutions. MAIN BODY: In this commentary, we explore some of the challenges in HRQoL assessment in rare disease, propose solutions, and consider regulatory issues. Some of the solutions discussed entail the use of item banks, adapting existing measures from phenotypically similar disease contexts, use of multi-domain measurement indices, and adapting methods for assessing content validity of existing measures. Current regulatory considerations are discussed and resources outlined. CONCLUSION: Quality of life may be the most important endpoint for patients with rare diseases, and the challenges of valid assessment require effort and innovative thinking specific to each context to improve measurement and clinical outcomes.

The Burden of Type 2 Diabetes and the Value of Achieving Near Normoglycemia from the Patient Perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is extremely burdensome to people with T2D and associated with impaired health-related quality of life. This study explores the impact of T2D and potentially relevant outcomes for new therapies using a unique approach to in-depth qualitative interviews where people with T2D are asked to think about their future with T2D. METHODS: A cross-sectional qualitative interview study among people with T2D from the USA and UK. Interviews explored their treatment journey, perceptions of their future with T2D, and the value of achieving normoglycemia (explored through presentation of two vignettes with hypothetical medications that reduced hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] levels < 7% and < 5.7%). RESULTS: Patients with T2D (N = 50; US n = 25; UK n = 25) were 66.0% male, had a mean body mass index (BMI) of 30.8 ± 6.3 kg/m2, and had a mean of 13.0 ± 10.0 years since diagnosis. Current diabetes treatments included diet and exercise only (8.0%), oral medications only (62.0%), oral plus injections (24.0%), and insulin only (6.0%). Despite being treated, participants reported over 25 different unmet needs related to their T2D across a broad range of domains. The most common concerns were diet, diabetes-related complications, weight changes, and psychological and emotional issues. A large majority of participants indicated that achieving lower HbA1c values would change their life. When reflecting on the value of improved glycemic control, patients primarily anticipated physical improvements and improved psychological well-being. When presented with two hypothetical treatments, about 70% of participants preferred the < 5.7% treatment option over the < 7% HbA1c treatment option. CONCLUSIONS: People with T2D have a high disease burden, a broad range of unmet needs, and extremely varied experiences and expectations on the impacts of T2D on their lives and future. Many patients indicated that achieving near normoglycemia would substantially change their lives primarily in terms of their physical and emotional health.

Pexidartinib improves physical functioning and stiffness in patients with tenosynovial giant cell tumor: results from the ENLIVEN randomized clinical trial.

Background and purpose - The ENLIVEN trial showed that, after 25 weeks, pexidartinib statistically significantly reduced tumor size more than placebo in patients with symptomatic, advanced tenosynovial giant cell tumor (TGCT) for whom surgery was not recommended. Here, we detail the effect of pexidartinib on patient-reported physical function and stiffness in ENLIVEN.Patients and methods - This was a planned analysis of patient-reported outcome data from ENLIVEN, a double-blinded, randomized phase 3 trial of adults with symptomatic, advanced TGCT treated with pexidartinib or placebo. Physical function was assessed using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-physical function (PF), and worst stiffness was assessed using a numerical rating scale (NRS). A mixed model for repeated measures was used to compare changes in PROMIS-PF and worst stiffness NRS scores from baseline to week 25 between treatment groups. Response rates for the PROMIS-PF and worst stiffness NRS at week 25 were calculated based on threshold estimates from reliable change index and anchor-based methods.Results - Between baseline and week 25, greater improvements in physical function and stiffness were experienced by patients receiving pexidartinib than patients receiving placebo (change in PROMIS-PF = 4.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.8-6.3] vs. -0.9 [CI -3.0 to 1.2]; change in worst stiffness NRS = -2.5 [CI -3.0 to -1.9] vs. -0.3 [CI -0.9 to 0.3]). Patients receiving pexidartinib had higher response rates than patients receiving placebo for meaningful improvements in physical function and stiffness. Improvements were sustained after 50 weeks of pexidartinib treatment.Interpretation - Pexidartinib treatment provided sustained, meaningful improvements in physical function and stiffness for patients with symptomatic, advanced TGCT.

Patients' preferences for once-daily oral versus once-weekly injectable diabetes medications: The REVISE study.

AIMS: To understand patient preferences for once-daily oral versus once-weekly injectable type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) medication administration profiles, and reasons for their preferences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The REVISE study, a cross-sectional online survey of 600 participants with T2DM (United Kingdom, n = 300; United States, n = 300), elicited general preferences for once-daily oral versus once-weekly injectable diabetes medications, and reasons for the preference. Participants then viewed two videos describing the administration procedures for injectable dulaglutide and oral semaglutide, based on the product instructions for use. Thereafter, participants indicated their preference for a once-weekly injectable or a once-daily oral medication based on the video descriptions. Participants who switched preferences were asked to identify the reasons influencing their decision. RESULTS: The participants were predominantly male (n = 349; 58.2%), with a mean (SD) age of 64 (11.3) years. Nearly all (n = 557; 92.8%) were taking an oral T2DM medication, and 158 (26.3%) were using an injectable. Initially, 76.5% (n = 459; 95% confidence interval [CI] 73.1-79.9) preferred a once-daily oral and 23.5% a once-weekly injectable (n = 141; 95% CI 20.1-26.9; P < 0.0001). After viewing the videos describing the product-specific administration, the proportions of participants preferring each option were not statistically different (oral semaglutide administration description (n = 315; 52.5%; 95% CI 48.5-56.5; dulaglutide administration description (n = 285; 47.5%; 95% CI 43.5-51.5; NS, P = 0.2207). The most common reason for switching preferences was the timing and steps of administration. CONCLUSION: Several treatment-related characteristics, including route, frequency and complexity of the treatment, play a role in patients' preferences for T2DM treatments and should be considered during treatment selection.