Quality of patient-reported outcome data captured using paper and interactive voice response diaries in an allergic rhinitis study: is electronic data capture really better?

BACKGROUND: Accuracy and reliability of diary data collected in allergic rhinitis trials depends on how and when the information is recorded by the subjects. OBJECTIVE: To compare diary data collected by using paper (optical mark readable) and electronic [telephone, interactive voice response system (IVRS)] tools. METHODS: There was a randomized, 3-week, 3-way, crossover trial, in 87 adults with allergic rhinitis recording diary data at home. Outcome measures were (1) comparison of symptom data during weeks when both or only 1 instrument was used; (2) missing data: and (3) ease of use and participant preference. RESULTS: More than 40,000 symptom data elements were recorded by 72 protocol-correct subjects. Symptoms recorded during the week that both instruments were used and when the 2 instruments were used alone were indistinguishable. Overall, 0.45% of paper and 4.12% of IVRS symptom data were missing. Of 10,080 paired data collected on paper and IVRS diaries during the week in which subjects used both, 94.44% were identical. Using IVRS, 63.2% of protocol-correct data were entered within the designated time and 87.6% within 1 half-day of the time specified; 85% of subjects preferred the paper instrument, 4% preferred IVRS, and 11% had no preference. CONCLUSIONS: A paper-based instrument can capture data indistinguishable from data captured from an electronic product. Processes to collect diary data should be evaluated for each study rather than simply to use the "latest" technology. Another interpretation is that frequency of recording diary data does not have a significant impact on outcomes.

Onset of action, efficacy, and safety of fexofenadine 60 mg/pseudoephedrine 120 mg versus placebo in the Atlanta allergen exposure unit.

BACKGROUND: Second-generation antihistamine-decongestant combinations are often used to treat seasonal allergies. However, onset of action and efficacy data for these agents in a controlled setting are limited. OBJECTIVE: Determine onset of action of fexofenadine-pseudoephedrine (Allegra-D, Aventis, Bridgewater, NJ) for treating moderate-to-severe seasonal allergies in an allergen exposure unit. METHODS: This single-dose, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted during the fall ragweed allergy season. Qualifying subjects attended one to two priming visits; those with sufficient symptom scores returned for treatment and were initially exposed to ragweed pollen for 90 minutes. Symptomatic subjects received fexofenadine-pseudoephedrine or placebo and recorded symptoms for 6 hours postdose. Efficacy variables were major symptom complex (MSC; sneezes, itchy nose, runny nose, watery eyes, itchy eyes, itchy ears/throat, stuffy nose), total symptom complex (nose blows, sniffles, postnasal drip, cough, plus all MSC symptoms), and all individual symptoms as well as headache. Onset of action for each efficacy variable was calculated as the earliest time at which a consistent, significant decrease was seen for fexofenadine-pseudoephedrine versus placebo. RESULTS: Of 571 screened subjects, 298 were randomized. Onset of relief for fexofenadine-pseudoephedrine (n = 148) was 45 minutes postdose (MSC, P = 0.0127; total symptom complex, P = 0.0380). All individual symptoms were reduced to a greater extent with fexofenadine-pseudoephedrine than with placebo (P < 0.05, not adjusted for multiple comparisons). Decrease in headache with fexofenadine-pseudoephedrine versus placebo began 45 minutes postdose (P = 0.0425). Incidence of treatment-related adverse events was 1.4% for fexofenadine-pseudoephedrine and 3.3% for placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Fexofenadine-pseudoephedrine was safe and effective in treating a broad range of allergy symptoms, with a rapid onset of action at 45 minutes.

Does heparin prophylaxis prevent exacerbations of hereditary angioedema?

BACKGROUND: Hereditary angioedema (HAE) is a rare disorder characterized by episodes of angioedema of the skin, mucous membranes, and gastrointestinal tract resulting from a defect in the gene that produces C1 esterase inhibitor. Although in vitro laboratory data and past reports suggested that heparin might be efficacious in preventing HAE attacks, no controlled study has been reported to examine heparin's efficacy in this regard. OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the safety and efficacy of inhaled and subcutaneous heparin versus that of placebo in the prevention of HAE attacks. METHODS: We performed a double-blind, double-dummy, saline placebo-controlled, randomized, 3-way crossover study with 11 visits. RESULTS: The study was designed to enroll 24 patients. Twenty-two patients were randomized and received the study drug. Patients did not have a significant decrease in average flare intensity after they received injected or inhaled heparin compared with that seen after placebo, the primary endpoint. However, when patients received injected heparin, they had a statistically significant decrease in average flare intensity compared with that seen with inhaled heparin after a normalizing transformation was applied. When the means are back transformed, this translates into median flare intensities of 9.2, 8.0, and 5.1 in the patients treated with inhaled heparin, placebo, and injected heparin, respectively. There were no significant differences when individual symptoms were examined, when total numbers of flares over a 6-week observation period were examined, or when global evaluations by the patients and investigators were evaluated. Adverse event severity was fairly uniform across treatments, with the majority of events classified as moderate and the remainder split between mild and severe. Injected heparin treatment was associated with higher rates of relatedness than other treatments, which was partially explained by 17 adverse events specifically related to the injection process itself (tenderness, bruising, redness, pain, and itching at the injection site). The injection treatment was also associated with a larger overall number of reported adverse events (70 vs 48 in the placebo treatment). Tenderness and bruising at the injection site were entirely confined to the injected heparin treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Injected and inhaled heparin failed to attenuate average flare intensity, the primary endpoint, compared with placebo. Interestingly, after patients injected heparin, they had a significant decrease in average flare intensity compared with that seen after inhalation of heparin. There were no differences among groups in other efficacy parameters. Taken together, these data indicate that commercial heparin was ineffective in preventing exacerbations of HAE.

Performance of cochlear implant recipients with GJB2-related deafness.

Congenital profound hearing loss affects 0.05-0.1% of children and has many causes, some of which are associated with cognitive delay. For prelingually-deafened cochlear implant recipients, the etiology of deafness is usually unknown. Mutations in GJB2 have been established as the most common cause of heritable deafness in the United States. In this report, we identify cochlear implant recipients with GJB2-related deafness and examine the performance of these individuals. Cochlear implant recipients received a battery of perceptive, cognitive, and reading tests. Neither subjects nor examiners knew the etiology of deafness in these individuals. The implant recipients were then examined for mutations in GJB2 using an allele-specific polymerase chain reaction assay, single-strand conformation polymorphism analysis, and direct sequencing. GJB2 mutations were the leading cause of congenital deafness among the cochlear implant recipients screened. Cochlear implant recipients with GJB2-related deafness read within one standard deviation of hearing controls better than other congenitally deaf cochlear implant recipients and non-cochlear implant recipients. Individuals with congenital deafness should be offered GJB2 screening. Positive results establish an etiologic diagnosis and provide prognostic, genetic, and therapeutic information. Effective rehabilitation for profoundly deaf individuals with GJB2-related deafness is possible through cochlear implantation.