Search

Background: The validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD™) is a standardized severity assessment for use in clinical trials and registries for atopic dermatitis (AD)., Objectives: To investigate the reliability, validity, responsiveness and within-patient meaningful change of the vIGA-AD., Methods: Data were analysed from adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD in the BREEZE-AD1 (N = 624 patients; NCT03334396), BREEZE-AD2 (N = 615; NCT03334422) and BREEZE-AD5 (N = 440; NCT03435081) phase III baricitinib clinical studies., Results: Across studies, test-retest reliability for stable patients showed moderate-to-good agreement [range of Kappa values for Patient Global Impression of Severity-Atopic Dermatitis (PGI-S-AD), 0·516-0·639; for Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), 0·658-0·778]. Moderate-to-large correlations between vIGA-AD and EASI or body surface area (range at baseline, 0·497-0·736; Week 16, 0·716-0·893) supported convergent validity. Known-groups validity was demonstrated vs. EASI and PGI-S-AD (vIGA-AD for severe vs. moderate EASI categories at baseline, P < 0·001). Responsiveness was demonstrated vs. EASI (P < 0·001 for much improved vs. improved and improved vs. stable). Anchor- and distribution-based methods supported a vIGA-AD change of -1·0 as clinically meaningful. These findings are limited to populations defined by the studies' inclusion and exclusion criteria., Conclusions: The vIGA-AD demonstrated sufficient reliability, validity, responsiveness and interpretation standards for use in clinical trials. What is already known about this topic? A description of the development of the validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD™) has been published previously. What does this study add? The current study validates the vIGA-AD by demonstrating appropriate test-retest reliability, convergent validity, known-groups validity and responsiveness across three baricitinib clinical studies. In addition, a 1-point change was identified as a clinically meaningful patient-perceived change minimal clinically important difference in the vIGA-AD. What are the clinical implications of the work? The vIGA-AD is a measure for investigator assessment of atopic dermatitis suitable for use in clinical research., (© 2022 The Authors. British Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

Background: Baricitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase (JAK)1 and JAK 2 inhibitor, was shown to improve the signs and symptoms of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD)., Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of baricitinib with background topical corticosteroids (TCS) in patients with moderate-to-severe AD and inadequate response, intolerance or contraindication to ciclosporin A (CA)., Methods: In this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III study, patients were randomized 1: 1: 2: 1 to placebo (N = 93), baricitinib 1 mg (N = 93), 2 mg (N = 185) or 4 mg (N = 92) with background TCS. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients receiving baricitinib 4 mg or 2 mg (+ TCS) vs. placebo + TCS who achieved ≥ 75% improvement from baseline in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI 75) at week 16., Results: Baricitinib 4 mg + TCS was superior to placebo + TCS for EASI 75 (4 mg: 32%, placebo: 17%, P = 0·031) at week 16 and for improvements in itch, skin pain and number of night-time awakenings owing to itch. Improvements were maintained through 52 weeks of treatment. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were more common with baricitinib than placebo (+ TCS); most were mild or moderate. The most frequent TEAEs with baricitinib 4 mg + TCS were nasopharyngitis, herpes simplex, influenza and headache. No deaths or deep vein thromboses were reported., Conclusions: Baricitinib 4 mg + TCS improved the signs and symptoms of moderate-to-severe AD through 52 weeks of treatment in patients with inadequate response, intolerance or contraindication to CA. The safety profile was consistent with previous studies of baricitinib in moderate-to-severe AD. What is already known about this topic? Ciclosporin A is indicated for the treatment of atopic dermatitis that is refractory to topical therapies. However, its use is limited by safety concerns and it may not provide adequate response for some patients. Baricitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase (JAK)1 and JAK2 inhibitor, has been shown to improve the signs and symptoms of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis as a monotherapy or in combination with topical corticosteroids. What does this study add? Baricitinib combined with background low- or moderate-potency topical corticosteroids provided improvements in the signs and symptoms of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis through 1 year of treatment in patients with a contraindication, intolerance or failure to respond to ciclosporin A. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events with baricitinib 4 mg were nasopharyngitis, herpes simplex, influenza and headache. The safety profile was consistent with previous studies in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis., (© 2022 The Authors. British Journal of Dermatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Association of Dermatologists.)

Background: Skin pain (discomfort/soreness) is a common symptom associated with atopic dermatitis (AD)., Objective: To evaluate rapid changes in skin pain severity with baricitinib, and its impact on patient quality of life (QoL) in adults with moderate-to-severe AD who were inadequate responders to topical therapy., Methods: Adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD who were inadequate responders to topical therapies ( N = 440, BREEZE-AD5 [NCT03435081]) were randomized to once-daily placebo, baricitinib 1 mg, or baricitinib 2 mg for 16 weeks. Change in Skin Pain Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) scores were assessed for the randomized population. Skin Pain NRS and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) scores were assessed for Skin Pain Response groups and patients with Body Surface Area (BSA) 10% to 50%., Results: Skin Pain NRS improvement was significant versus placebo by day 1 baricitinib 2 mg (least squares mean [LSM] difference -4.4%, P = .048) and by day 2 for baricitinib 1 mg (-6.7%, P = .011). As measured weekly, improvement was significant starting at Week 1 and remained significant through Week 16 for both doses. At Week 16, 70.9% of Skin Pain NRS responders vs 10.4% of nonresponders had a clinically meaningful improvement in DLQI ( P < .0001). At week 16, LSM DLQI change from baseline was -11.1 for all Skin Pain NRS responders versus -3.5 for nonresponders ( P < .0001). Patients with BSA 10% to 50% showed similar trends., Conclusions: Patients with moderate-to-severe AD, treated with baricitinib, reported rapid improvements in skin pain severity by day 1 for baricitinib 2 mg and day 2 for baricitinib 1 mg and remained effective through 16 weeks of treatment, which positively impacted patient QoL.

Background: Baricitinib previously demonstrated improvements in itch and sleep disturbance versus placebo in adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD)., Objectives: Examine if itch and sleep improvements are associated with better quality of life (QoL) and productivity in patients with AD., Methods: Data were drawn from BREEZE-AD5 (NCT03435081). Itch and sleep improvement at Week 16 were defined using ≥4-point improvements in the Itch Numeric Rating Scale and ≥1.5 decreases in the number of nighttime awakenings since baseline, respectively. Patients with and without improvements were compared on Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-AD scores. Changes from baseline were analyzed using ANCOVA with last observation carried forward. Proportions were analyzed using logistic regression with non-responder imputation., Results: Greater proportions of patients with versus without itch improvement indicated no impact of AD on QoL (37.7 vs. 1.8%). Patients with itch improvement had greater decreases in work time impaired (-29.3 vs. -5.6%). More patients with versus without sleep improvement reported no effect of AD on QoL (25.5 vs. 1.1%); patients with better sleep experienced larger reductions in work time spent impaired (-33.3 vs. -6.1%)., Conclusions: Patients with AD who experienced itch and sleep improvement had significantly better QoL and productivity.

Background: Alopecia areata is an autoimmune condition characterized by rapid hair loss in the scalp, eyebrows, and eyelashes, for which treatments are limited. Baricitinib, an oral, selective, reversible inhibitor of Janus kinases 1 and 2, may interrupt cytokine signaling implicated in the pathogenesis of alopecia areata., Methods: We conducted two randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials (BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2) involving adults with severe alopecia areata with a Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score of 50 or higher (range, 0 [no scalp hair loss] to 100 [complete scalp hair loss]). Patients were randomly assigned in a 3:2:2 ratio to receive once-daily baricitinib at a dose of 4 mg, baricitinib at a dose of 2 mg, or placebo. The primary outcome was a SALT score of 20 or less at week 36., Results: We enrolled 654 patients in the BRAVE-AA1 trial and 546 in the BRAVE-AA2 trial. The estimated percentage of patients with a SALT score of 20 or less at week 36 was 38.8% with 4-mg baricitinib, 22.8% with 2-mg baricitinib, and 6.2% with placebo in BRAVE-AA1 and 35.9%, 19.4%, and 3.3%, respectively, in BRAVE-AA2. In BRAVE-AA1, the difference between 4-mg baricitinib and placebo was 32.6 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 25.6 to 39.5), and the difference between 2-mg baricitinib and placebo was 16.6 percentage points (95% CI, 9.5 to 23.8) (P<0.001 for each dose vs. placebo). In BRAVE-AA2, the corresponding values were 32.6 percentage points (95% CI, 25.6 to 39.6) and 16.1 percentage points (95% CI, 9.1 to 23.2) (P<0.001 for each dose vs. placebo). Secondary outcomes for baricitinib at a dose of 4 mg but not at a dose of 2 mg generally favored baricitinib over placebo. Acne, elevated levels of creatine kinase, and increased levels of low- and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol were more common with baricitinib than with placebo., Conclusions: In two phase 3 trials involving patients with severe alopecia areata, oral baricitinib was superior to placebo with respect to hair regrowth at 36 weeks. Longer trials are required to assess the efficacy and safety of baricitinib for alopecia areata. (Funded by Eli Lilly under license from Incyte; BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT03570749 and NCT03899259.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Treatment with baricitinib in combination with topical corticosteroids previously showed greater improvements in itch and sleep versus placebo in adults with moderate-to-severe AD., Objectives: To assess whether improvements in itch and sleep translate to greater quality of life (QoL), productivity and treatment benefit in AD., Materials & Methods: In this post hoc analysis with data from BREEZE-AD7 (NCT03733301), itch and sleep improvements at Week 16 were defined by ≥4-point improvements in the Itch Numeric Rating Scale and ≥1.5 decreases in the number of night-time awakenings since baseline, respectively. Dermatology Life Quality Index, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-AD and Patient Benefit Index (PBI) scores were compared in patients with and without improvements. Proportions were analysed using logistic regression with non-responder imputation. Changes from baseline were calculated using ANCOVA, with last observation carried forward. Least square mean PBI scores were assessed using ANOVA., Results: More patients with itch improvement versus no itch improvement reported no impact of AD on QoL (28.4% vs. 6.0%). Daily activity impairment was lower in patients with itch improvement (-39.6% vs. -15.6%). A greater proportion of patients with sleep improvement versus no sleep improvement had no AD-related impact on QoL (24.1% vs. 1.5%). Patients with sleep improvement had less daily activity impairment (-35.0% vs. -18.5%). Patients with itch and sleep improvements experienced greater treatment benefit., Conclusion: Patients with AD who experienced clinically meaningful improvements in itch and sleep following treatment had significantly better QoL, productivity and treatment benefit. Addressing these symptoms is important to achieving meaningful and patient-relevant improvements in well-being.

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., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Alopecia areata (AA) is a common disorder of patchy hair loss which carries a substantial psychological burden for patients. The current understanding of AA prevalence, disease course and burden is limited, and further research is needed to improve patient care. This prospective cohort of AA patients within the Danish Skin Cohort was established to provide data that can serve as a tool in future studies of for example, AA epidemiology and disease burden., Participants: A total of 1494 patients with dermatologist-verified AA were included in the cohort. Patients were invited and included through electronic or phone-based questionnaires. Information regarding demographics, biometrics, lifestyle factors, skin type, AA onset and development, health-related quality of life and self-reported severity assessment was collected., Findings to Date: The mean (SD) age of AA onset was 32.7 (17.6) years. The mean body mass index and history of cigarette smoking was comparable with the general population. The majority (92.5%) of participants were Caucasian. In total, 72.4% of patients received their diagnosis by a physician within a year after onset of symptoms, and 66.9% reported to still have symptoms of AA within the past year. A total of 12% reported to have a first-degree family member with AA. In total, 31.4% of patients were missing all or nearly all hairs on their scalp, 32.2% had no or barely no eyelashes and 36.2% had no or barely no eyebrow hairs. Overall, most patients (55.7%) did not experience irritated eyes, but 30% reported slight eye irritation and 47.2% reported no damage to finger nails or toenails., Future Plans: Observational studies regarding comorbidities, psychosocial burden of AA and efficacy of pharmacological interventions will be carried out and additional data will be linked from nationwide registries of routinely collected data. Furthermore, follow-up survey data will be added for longitudinal analyses., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Dr YMFA has received research funding from Kgl Hofbundtmager Aage Bang Foundation and AP Moller Foundation. Ms. LN has nothing to declare. Dr RTB, Mrs. AMD and Mrs. EE-H are employees and stockholders of Eli Lilly and Company. Dr AE has received research funding from Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AbbVie, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, the Danish National Psoriasis Foundation, the Simon Spies Foundation and the Kgl Hofbundtmager Aage Bang Foundation and honoraria as consultant and/or speaker from AbbVie, Almirall, Leo Pharma, Galápagos NV, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Samsung Bioepis, Ltd, Pfizer, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Galderma, Dermavant, UCB, Mylan, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Janssen Pharmaceuticals., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The current classification for alopecia areata (AA) does not provide a consistent assessment of disease severity., Objective: To develop an AA severity scale based on expert experience., Methods: A modified Delphi process was utilized. An advisory group of 22 AA clinical experts from the United States was formed to develop this AA scale. Representatives from the pharmaceutical industry provided feedback during its development., Results: Survey responses were used to draft severity criteria, aspiring to develop a simple scale that may be easily applied in clinical practice. A consensus vote was held to determine the final AA severity statement, with all AA experts agreeing to adopt the proposed scale., Limitations: The scale is a static assessment intended to be used in clinical practice and not clinical trials., Conclusion: The final AA disease severity scale, anchored in the extent of hair loss, captures key features commonly used by AA experts in clinical practice. This scale will better aid clinicians in appropriately assessing severity in patients with this common disease., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest Dr King reports serving on advisory boards and/or is a consultant and/or is a clinical trial investigator for Aclaris Therapeutics Inc, Almirall, Arena Pharmaceuticals, Bioniz Therapeutics, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Concert Pharmaceuticals Inc, Dermavant Sciences Inc, Eli Lilly and Company, Incyte Corp, Pfizer Inc, TWi Biotechnology Inc, and Viela Bio and is on speaker bureaus for Pfizer Inc, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme. Dr Mesinkovska reports receiving honoraria and/or fees from Eli Lilly and Company outside the submitted work, serving as chief scientific officer for the National Alopecia Areata Foundation, and serves on advisory boards for Arena Pharmaceuticals, Concert Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly and Company, and Nutrafol. Dr Craiglow reports receiving honoraria and/or fees from Eli Lilly and Company outside the submitted work, Aclaris Therapeutics Inc, Arena Pharmaceuticals Inc, Pfizer Inc, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc, and Sanofi Genzyme. Dr Kindred reports receiving honoraria and/or fees from Eli Lilly and Company outside the submitted work, serves on advisory boards for Eli Lilly and Company and UCB, is a speaker for Selphyl and Aerolase, and is the Chair of the National Medical Association, Dermatology Section. Dr Ko serves on advisory boards and is a consultant and clinical investigator for Eli Lilly and Company, and he has served as a clinical investigator and/or consultant for AbbVie, Sanofi, Regeneron, Dermira, BMS, and Arena Pharmaceuticals and has received consulting fees from Eli Lilly and Company, Concert Pharmaceuticals, and Arena Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Dr McMichael reports receiving honoraria and/or fees from Eli Lilly and Company outside the submitted work, serving as a consultant for Eli Lilly and Company, and Pfizer Inc, and as a researcher for Concert Pharmaceuticals. Dr Shapiro reports serving as a consultant for Eli Lilly and Company, as a consultant and investigator for Pfizer Inc, and has received honoraria from Pfizer Inc, Eli Lilly and Company, Applied Biology, and DS Laboratories outside the submitted work, and served as an investigator for RegenLab and received stock options for Eirion and Replicel Life Sciences. Dr Mirmirani reports acting as a Principal Investigator, clinical trials for Concert Pharmaceuticals, Eli Lilly and Company, and Pfizer Inc, is a compensated consultant/advisory board member for Eli Lilly and Company, and a consultant for DS Laboratories, Monat Global, Almirall, Thirty Madison, Leo Pharmaceuticals, Bristol Myers Squibb, P&G. Dr Hordinsky reports being an investigator for alopecia areata clinical trials sponsored by Pfizer Inc, Eli Lilly and Company, and Concert Pharmaceuticals and being a consultant for CASSIOPEA S.p.A., and the immediate past president of the American Hair Research Society. Dr Huang reports royalty payments to her institution from Pfizer for licensing of the ALTO tool and consulting fees from Concert Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer Inc, and Eli Lilly and Company. Dr Castelo-Soccio reports receiving fees for alopecia-related presentations, participating in a scientific advisory panel for Pfizer Inc and on the medical advisory board for the National Alopecia Areata Foundation. Dr Bergfeld reports personal and other fees from Eli Lilly and Company, Chairing the International Federation of Hair Research, and being a former president of the American Hair Research Society. Dr Paller reports being an investigator for AbbVie, AnaptysBio, Eli Lilly, Incyte, KrystalBio, Janssen, and Regeneron, on a data safety monitoring board for AbbVie and Galderma, and a consultant with honorarium for AbbVie, Abeona, Almirall, Amagma, Anaptysbio, Arena, Bausch, Bristol Myer Squibb, Dermavant, Dermira, Eli Lilly, Exicure, Forte, Leo, Lifemax, Phoenix, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Rapt, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sol-Gel, UCB, and Venthera. Dr Mackay-Wiggan reports receiving honoraria and/or fees from Eli Lilly and Company, being a consultant for Pfizer Inc, Eli Lilly and Company, and Concert Pharmaceuticals, and participating in an advisory board for Eli Lilly and Company, and receipt of site-related equipment and consumables from Pfizer Inc and Concert Pharmaceuticals. Dr Glashofer reports serving as a consultant for Eli Lilly and Company. Dr Piliang reports receiving grants/contract for study sites from Pfizer Inc, and Eli Lilly and Company. Dr Lo Sicco reports receiving a grant from Pfizer Education for alopecia areata-related work, and being a RegenLab, and Pfizer Inc. Dr Cassella reports being an employee and stockholder of Concert Pharmaceuticals. Author Koenigsberg reports being an employee and stockholder of Concert Pharmaceuticals. Dr Ghorayeb reports being an employee and stockholder of Janssen Global Services, LLC. Dr Fakharzadeh reports being a current employee and stockholder of Janssen Global Services, LLC. Dr Napatalung reports being a current employee and stockholder of Pfizer Inc. Author Gandhi reports being an employee and stockholder of Pfizer Inc. Dr DeLozier reports being an employee and stockholder at Eli Lilly and Company. Dr Nunes reports being an employee and stockholder at Eli Lilly and Company during manuscript development and being a current employee and stockholder at Janssen Global Services, LLC. Dr Senna reports clinical trial funding and SAB consulting fees from Eli Lilly and Company, during the conduction of the study and reported clinical trial funding from Concert Pharmaceuticals and SAB consulting fees from Pfizer Inc. Drs Tosti, Aguh, and Ahluwalia do not have conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common, chronic, relapsing, inflammatory skin disease causing a variety of dermatologic signs and symptoms, affecting patient&rsquo;s quality of life. While treatment options are available, they are of variable effectiveness. This study sought to characterize patient-reported AD signs and symptoms, flare, and associated bother, by disease severity and control., Methods: Adults diagnosed with AD were recruited through the National Eczema Association (NEA) and clinical sites and completed a web-based survey including the Patient-Oriented SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (PO-SCORAD), Recap of Atopic Eczema (RECAP), and Skin Pain numeric rating scale (NRS), as well as questions on previous/current clinical presentation, flare frequency and severity, past/ present AD treatment, and sociodemographic characteristics., Results: A total of 186 participants completed the survey (mean age 39.7 years, 80% female). The most frequently reported current AD signs and symptoms included dryness, itch, redness, roughness, and flaking skin, and the most bothersome were itch, dryness, and redness (63%). The majority of participants (84%) were either currently experiencing a flare or had experienced one within the past month. The most common signs and symptoms that grew worse during the most recent flare were itch and redness across all disease severity groups. Participants most often experienced one to three flares in the last three months. Flare frequency, duration, and average severity increased with greater disease severity and lack of disease control., Conclusions: The results of this study demonstrate the diverse and considerable symptomatic burden experienced by people with AD, even while being treated for AD. J Drugs Dermatol. 2021;20(11):1222-1230. doi:10.36849/JDD.6329.

Background: The Itch Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Skin Pain NRS, and Atopic Dermatitis Sleep Scale (ADSS) are self-administered patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments developed to assess symptoms in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD). The objective of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties (reliability, validity, and responsiveness) and interpretability thresholds of these PROs using data from three pivotal Phase 3 studies in adults., Methods: BREEZE-AD1, BREEZE-AD2, and BREEZE-AD5 evaluated the safety and efficacy of baricitinib in adults with moderate-to-severe AD. Clinician-reported outcomes and other PROs commonly assessed in patients with AD were used to estimate meaningful changes and evaluate test-retest reliability, convergent and divergent validity, known-groups validity, responsiveness, and meaningful change thresholds (MCTs) of the Itch NRS, Skin Pain NRS, and ADSS., Results: The test-retest reliability of the Itch NRS, Skin Pain NRS, and ADSS was evidenced by generally large intraclass correlation coefficients (> 0.7) in stable groups of patients between baseline and Week 1 and Weeks 4 and 8. Moderate-to-large correlations (r > 0.4) at baseline and Week 16 were generally observed between each measure and other PROs measuring the same concept, supporting convergent validity. Small-to-moderate correlations with clinician-reported outcomes demonstrated divergent validity. Each instrument was able to distinguish between known groups of disease severity as assessed using other indicators of AD severity. The responsiveness of the Itch NRS, Skin Pain NRS, and ADSS scales was demonstrated through significant differences in their change scores from baseline to Week 16 between categories of change in another PRO also from baseline to Week 16. Thresholds for interpreting meaningful change were estimated as - 4.0 for the 0-10 Itch and Skin Pain NRS items; - 1.25 for the 0-4 ADSS Items 1 and 3 and; - 1.50 for the 0-29 ADSS Item 2, these equivalent to moderate degrees of change., Conclusions: Results of this study demonstrate that the psychometric properties of the Itch NRS, Skin Pain NRS, and ADSS are good to excellent. These findings support the use of these instruments in daily assessment of AD symptoms in adults with moderate-to-severe AD. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov numbers: NCT03334396, NCT03334422, and NCT03435081., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Skin pain (described as discomfort or soreness) is increasingly recognized as a symptom of atopic dermatitis which impacts patient quality of life. This analysis examined the effect of baricitinib on skin pain in atopic dermatitis in three phase 3 studies (BREEZE-AD1, -AD2, and -AD7)., Methods: Patients were randomly assigned 2:1:1:1 to receive once-daily placebo, baricitinib 1 mg, 2 mg, or 4 mg in BREEZE-AD1 (N = 624) and -AD2 (N = 615) and 1:1:1 to receive once-daily placebo, baricitinib 2 mg, or 4 mg, with topical corticosteroids, in BREEZE-AD7 (N = 329) for 16 weeks. Patients recorded their skin pain severity using the Skin Pain Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) via an electronic daily diary. Data were analyzed by study as least squares mean change from baseline in daily scores for the randomly assigned patients using mixed model repeated measures analysis. Analysis of Skin Pain NRS response was done using logistic regression using non-responder imputation., Results: Baricitinib produced significant percentage change from baseline compared with placebo in patient-reported skin pain severity by day 2 in BREEZE-AD1 (baricitinib 4 mg - 11.9%, p < 0.001; baricitinib 2 mg - 6.4%, p = 0.016; baricitinib 1 mg - 6.2%, p = 0.016), -AD2 (baricitinib 4 mg - 12.6%, p < 0.001; baricitinib 2 mg - 5.6%, p = 0.036; baricitinib 1 mg - 6.9%, p = 0.011), and -AD7 (baricitinib 4 mg - 6.9%, p = 0.04; baricitinib 2 mg - 7.9%, p = 0.018). A greater proportion of patients treated with baricitinib reported at least a 4-point reduction in Skin Pain NRS score at week 16 (Skin Pain NRS responders) in BREEZE-AD1 (baricitinib 4 mg 25.3%, p < 0.001), -AD2 (baricitinib 4 mg 20.0%, p < 0.001; baricitinib 2 mg 19.0%, p < 0.001), and -AD7 (baricitinib 4 mg 48.8%, p < 0.001; baricitinib 2 mg 45.2%, p = 0.004) compared to placebo. A significantly higher proportion of Skin Pain NRS responders also achieved at least a 4-point improvement in Dermatology Life Quality Index at week 16 when compared with Skin Pain NRS non-responders in BREEZE-AD1 (89.2%, p < 0.0001), -AD2 (92.5%, p < 0.0001), and -AD7 (88.3%, p < 0.0001)., Conclusion: Baricitinib improved patient-reported skin pain severity as early as day 2. CLINICALTRIALS., Gov Identifiers: BREEZE-AD1, NCT03334396; BREEZE-AD2, NCT03334422; BREEZE-AD7, NCT03733301., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Baricitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase 1/Janus kinase 2 inhibitor, is being studied for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults., Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of baricitinib monotherapy in a North American phase 3 trial (BREEZE-AD5/NCT03435081) of adults with moderate-to-severe AD who responded inadequately or were intolerant to topical therapy., Methods: Patients (N = 440) were randomized 1:1:1 to once-daily placebo or baricitinib (1 mg or 2 mg). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving ≥75% reduction in the Eczema Area and Severity Index at week 16. A key secondary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a validated Investigator Global Assessment for AD score of 0 (clear)/1(almost clear) with ≥2-point improvement., Results: At week 16, the proportion of patients achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index was 8%, 13%, and 30% (P < .001, 2 mg vs placebo) and those with a validated Investigator Global Assessment for AD score of 0/1 were 5%, 13%, and 24% (P < .001, 2 mg vs placebo) for placebo, baricitinib 1 mg, and baricitinib 2 mg, respectively. Safety findings were similar to those of other baricitinib AD studies., Limitations: Short-term clinical trial results may not be generalizable to real-world settings., Conclusion: Baricitinib was efficacious for patients with moderate-to-severe AD with no new safety findings over 16 weeks., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest Dr Simpson reports grants and fees for participation as a consultant and principal investigator from Eli Lilly and Company, LEO Pharma, Pfizer, and Regeneron; grants for participation as a principal investigator from Galderma and Merck & Co; and fees for consultant services from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dermavant Incyte, Forte Bio, Pierre Fabre Dermo, and Sanofi Genzyme. Dr Forman is a consultant, investigator, advisory board member, and/or speaker for and receives funding and/or honoraria from AbbVie, Aclaris Therapeutics Inc, Asana BioSciences, AstraZeneca, Athenex, Celgene Corporation, Cutanea Life Sciences, Eli Lilly and Company, Incyte Corporation, Innovaderm Research Inc, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Promius Pharma LLC, Regeneron, UCB, Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC, and XBiotech. Dr Silverberg served as a consultant and/or advisory board member for AbbVie, Arena, Asana, Bluefin, Boehringer Ingelheim, Dermavant, Dermira, Eli Lilly and Company, Galderma, GlaxoSmithKline, Glenmark, Incyte, Kiniksa, Leo, Luna, Novartis, Pfizer, RAPT, Regeneron, and Sanofi, receiving honoraria; served as a speaker for Regeneron-Sanofi; and received research grants from Galderma. Dr Zirwas is a consultant, investigator, and/or speaker for Regeneron, Sanofi, Genench, Novartis, L'Oreal, Menlo, Leo, Eli Lilly and Company, Ortho Derm, and Arcutis and is a part owner of AsepticMD. Dr Han is a consultant for Eli Lilly and Company, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Pfizer. Dr Guttman-Yassky is a consultant for AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, Asana Biosciences, Boehringer Ingelhiem, Cara Therapeutics, Celgene, Concert, DBV, Dermira, DS Biopharma, Eli Lilly and Company, EMD Serono, Escalier, Galderma, Glenmark, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Mitsubishi Tanabe, Pfizer, RAPT Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sienna Biopharma, and Union Therapeutics and reports institute grants for research from AbbVie, Almirall, Amgen, AnaptysBio, Asana Biosciences, Boehringer Ingelhiem, Celgene, Dermavant, DS Biopharma, Eli Lilly and Company, Glenmark, Galderma, Innovaderm, Janssen, Kiniska, Kyowa Kirin, Leo Pharma, Novan, Pfizer, Ralexar, Regeneron, Sienna Biopharma, UCB, and Union Therapeutics. Dr Bissonnette is an advisory board member, consultant, speaker and/or investigator for and receives honoraria and/or grant from AbbVie, Arcutis, Arena Pharma, Asana BioSciences, Bellus Health, Boehringer Ingelheim, CARA, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Galderma, Incyte, Kiniksa, Kyowa Kirin, LEO Pharma, Novan, Pfizer, Ralexar, RAPT, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Sienna and is an employee and shareholder of Innovaderm Research. Dr Waibel is an investigator, consultant speaker for, and/or receives honoraria from AbbVie, Pfizer, Candela, Cytrellis, Dominion, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Sebacia, and Sciton. Dr Papp is a consultant, speaker, investigator, scientific officer, steering committee member, and/or advisory board member for AbbVie, Akros, Amgen, Anacor, Arcutis, Astellas, Bausch Health/Valeant, Baxalta, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Can-Fite Biopharma, Celgene, Coherus, Dermira, Dow Pharma, Eli Lilly and Company, Evelo, Galapagos, Galderma, Genentech, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Leo, Medimmune, Meiji Seika Pharma, Merck (MSD), Merck- Serono, Mitsubishi Pharma, Moberg Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, PRCL Research, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis/Genzyme, Sun Pharma, Takeda, UCB. Drs Nunes, Holzwarth, and Janes and authors DeLozier and Angle are employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly and Company. Drs Gamalo and Goldblum were employees of Eli Lilly and Company during the study. Drs Maverakis and Marnell and author Zhong have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Importance: Baricitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase inhibitor, improved the clinical signs and symptoms of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis in the 16-week, phase 3 monotherapy studies, BREEZE-AD1 and BREEZE-AD2. Long-term efficacy has not yet been examined., Objective: To evaluate the long-term (68-week) efficacy of baricitinib in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis who were treatment responders or partial responders in BREEZE-AD1 and BREEZE-AD2., Design, Setting, and Participants: Patients completing BREEZE-AD1/BREEZE-AD2 entered the ongoing, multicenter, double-blind, long-term extension study BREEZE-AD3. The study was initiated on March 28, 2018. Data were analyzed on December 13, 2019., Interventions: Responders and partial responders (patients achieving validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis [vIGA-AD] score of 0 or 1 [0,1], or 2) at BREEZE-AD1/BREEZE-AD2 completion remained on originally assigned treatment for 52 weeks (68 total weeks of continuous therapy)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving a vIGA-AD score of 0,1 at weeks 16, 36, and 52 of BREEZE-AD3. Secondary end points included the proportion of patients achieving 75% or more improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index [EASI75] score and 4-point or more improvement in the itch numeric rating scale (NRS), using originating study baseline data. Itch data were collected during the first 16 weeks in BREEZE-AD3. The last originating study visit was the first BREEZE-AD3 visit; therefore, data are presented for continuous weeks of therapy, including the 16-week originating study period. Missing data were imputed by last observation carried forward. Modified intention-to-treat analysis was used., Results: Of the responder/partial responder population, the proportion of patients treated with baricitinib, 4 mg (n = 70) (mean [SD] age, 36.7 [15.5] years; 42 [60%] were men), achieving vIGA-AD (0,1) at week 16 was 45.7% (BREEZE-AD3 baseline) and, at week 68, 47.1%. Improvement of 75% or more in the EASI score was 70.0% at week 16 and 55.7% at week 68. The proportion of patients achieving an itch NRS improvement greater than or equal to 4 points at week 16 was 52.5% and, at week 32, 45.9%. Of the responder/partial responder population, the proportion of patients treated with baricitinib, 2 mg (n = 54) (mean [SD] age, 32.8 [12.7] years; 28 [51.9%] were men), achieving vIGA-AD (0,1) at week 16 was 46.3% and, at week 68, 59.3%. Improvement in the EASI75 score was 74.1% at week 16 and 81.5% at week 68. The proportion of patients achieving an itch NRS improvement greater than or equal to 4 points at week 16 was 44.2% and, at week 32, 39.5%., Conclusions and Relevance: In this long-term double-blind extension study of 2 randomized clinical trials, baricitinib, 4 and 2 mg, demonstrated sustained long-term efficacy in patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03334435.

Objective: The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) is validated for measuring fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, 10 of 13 FACIT-F items are identified as relevant to patients with RA. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) uses an item response theory-calibrated T score metric. The PROMIS Fatigue item bank includes the FACIT-F items, enabling score conversion. The performance of converted PROMIS Fatigue scores has not been evaluated in RA populations or clinical trials. Our objective was to assess the performance of converted PROMIS Fatigue scores in 2 RA clinical trials of baricitinib., Methods: Crosswalk tables and pattern-scoring methods converted FACIT-F scores to PROMIS Fatigue for both the 13-item FACIT-F and the 10-item RA-optimized FACIT-F instrument, in 2 RA clinical trials evaluating baricitinib, RA-BEAM, and RA-BEACON. RA-BEAM patients had an inadequate response to methotrexate. RA-BEACON patients had an inadequate response or intolerance to ≥1 tumor necrosis factor inhibitor. Baricitinib was compared to all treatment arms via analysis of covariance on PROMIS Fatigue score conversions., Results: Baseline FACIT-F-derived PROMIS Fatigue scores reflected severe fatigue across treatment groups and were similar using different scoring methods. At week 24 in both studies, baricitinib was associated with clinically meaningful improvements in PROMIS Fatigue scores. PROMIS Fatigue scores were consistent for conversion methods and for the 13-item or 10-item FACIT-F., Conclusion: All 4 conversion methods showed differentiation of active treatment compared with placebo from week 12, supporting the use of the PROMIS Fatigue and converting the 10-item FACIT-F to assess fatigue and demonstrate treatment benefit in RA clinical trials on a standardized metric., (© 2020, American College of Rheumatology.)

Importance: Baricitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor, effectively reduced disease severity in moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in 2 phase 3 monotherapy studies., Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of 4 mg and 2 mg of baricitinib in combination with background topical corticosteroid (TCS) therapy in adults with moderate to severe AD who previously had an inadequate response to TCS therapy., Design, Setting, and Participants: This double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 randomized clinical trial, BREEZE-AD7 (Study of Baricitinib [LY3009104] in Combination With Topical Corticosteroids in Adults With Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis) was conducted from November 16, 2018, to August 22, 2019, at 68 centers across 10 countries in Asia, Australia, Europe, and South America. Patients 18 years or older with moderate to severe AD and an inadequate response to TCSs were included. After completing the study, patients were followed up for up to 4 weeks or enrolled in a long-term extension study., Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive 2 mg of baricitinib once daily (n = 109), 4 mg of baricitinib once daily (n = 111), or placebo (n = 109) for 16 weeks. The use of low-to-moderate potency TCSs was allowed., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving a validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD) score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear), with a 2-point or greater improvement from baseline at week 16., Results: Among 329 patients (mean [SD] age, 33.8 [12.4] years; 216 [66%] male), at week 16, a vIGA-AD score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) was achieved by 34 patients (31%) receiving 4 mg of baricitinib and 26 (24%) receiving 2 mg of baricitinib compared with 16 (15%) receiving placebo (odds ratio vs placebo, 2.8 [95% CI, 1.4-5.6]; P = .004 for the 4-mg group; 1.9 [95% CI, 0.9-3.9]; P = .08 for the 2-mg group). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 64 of 111 patients (58%) in the 4-mg group, 61 of 109 patients (56%) in the 2-mg group, and 41 of 108 patients (38%) in the placebo group. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 patients (4%) in the 4-mg group, 2 (2%) in the 2-mg group, and 4 (4%) in the placebo group. The most common adverse events were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infections, and folliculitis., Conclusions and Relevance: A dose of 4 mg of baricitinib in combination with background TCS therapy significantly improved the signs and symptoms of moderate to severe AD, with a safety profile consistent with previous studies of baricitinib in AD., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03733301.

Little is currently known about possible associations between disease specific characteristics of atopic dermatitis (AD) and use of medical treatments. We explored the use of AD treatments within the past 12 months in Danish adults according to distinct patient characteristics. Patients who had received a diagnosis of AD in a hospital in- or outpatient setting as adults were surveyed and data cross-linked to a national prescription registry. AD severity was measured by the Patient-Oriented SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (PO-SCORAD). A total of 3834 patients participated. Use of topical medication in the past 12 months increased with increasing AD severity, whereas no difference was observed for systemic medication use. Positive associations between AD in the face and neck, and use of mild and moderately potent topical corticosteroids were observed, while involvement of palms and chest was associated with use of more potent topical corticosteroids. The mean DLQI, skin pain, and itch severity scores were lower in patients managed only with topical corticosteroids (5.5, 3.2, and 4.3, respectively) compared to patients treated with both oral and topical medication (7.1, 3.8, and 5.0, respectively). Patients with frequent topical corticosteroid use tended to be older (50.7 vs 48.6 years), males (50.0% vs 33.6%), current daily smokers (17.3% vs 13.7%), and having asthma (59.1% vs 43.8%) compared with infrequent users of topical corticosteroids. We found a disconnect between the severity of AD signs and symptoms, and use of AD therapies. In particular, a very modest use of systemic immunosuppressants was seen even among patients with severe AD symptoms. However, the underlying clinical decisions and reasons behind this disconnect is not clear based on the current data., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: Atopic dermatitis (AD) has a negative impact on patients&rsquo; quality of life (QoL)., Objective: To report the impact of specific AD lesion locations on QoL in adult patients with AD using real-world data., Methods: The Adelphi US Disease Specific Programme was conducted between January&ndash;April 2018. Physicians documented patient demographics/characteristics, AD lesion locations, and body surface area; patients completed questionnaires reporting the impact of lesion locations on QoL., Results: AD severity was moderate in 51.6% of patients and severe in 6.0%. Lesions were commonly identified in more than one location. All AD lesion locations impacted QoL. Visible areas were most bothersome, including head/neck (68%), hands/fingers (58%), front (30%), upper extremities (22%), and lower extremities (16%), with statistically significant associations for a number of Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) items. Itch, soreness, pain, and stinging are also associated with a number of body areas but in particular with those that are most visible/accessible. Lesions on the head/neck and hands/fingers (58%) demonstrated an increased impact on the anxiety and depression dimension of the EuroQol 5-Dimension tool., Conclusions: In patients with AD, quality of life was most affected in patients with lesions in visible areas, including head/neck, hands/fingers, and upper extremities, with statistically significant associations for a number of DLQI domains. Physicians should be aware of the burden of AD lesions on QoL and consider having conversations with patients to better understand the impact of these lesions. Prior presentation: 28th Annual European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology Congress; 9&ndash;13 October 2019, Madrid, Spain. Poster number P0233.J Drugs Dermatol. 2020;19(10): 943-948. doi:10.36849/JDD.2020.5422.

Skin pain is increasingly recognized as an impactful symptom in atopic dermatitis (AD) because of its association with patient discomfort, disease burden, and reduced quality of life. Although the nature of skin pain in AD has not been systematically studied and is therefore not well understood, patients report soreness, discomfort, and tenderness that may reflect peripheral and central pain sensitization. The high prevalence of skin pain suggests that it is not adequately addressed by current therapies for AD and may be undertreated compared with other symptoms. This review discusses the clinical relevance of skin pain with respect to its experience, pathophysiology, relationship with itch, and treatment implications. Recent studies suggest that skin pain presents as a neuropathic symptom independent from itch and the &ldquo;itch-scratch cycle&rdquo;, and poses a unique burden to patients. Recognition of the significant consequences of skin pain and discomfort should reinforce the need to assess and treat this symptom in patients with moderate-to-severe AD. J Drugs Dermatol. 2020;19(10)921-926. doi:10.36849/JDD.2020.5498.

Background: An Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) is recommended by health agencies for drug registration in atopic dermatitis (AD). Current IGA scales lack standardization., Objectives: To develop an IGA scale, training module, and clinical certification examination for use in AD trials; establish content validity; and assess reliability., Methods: Expert dermatologists participated in the development of the validated IGA for AD (vIGA-AD TM ). Reliability (interrater and intrarater) was assessed by 2 web-based surveys. Clinical certification for investigators consisted of a training module and examination., Results: Expert consensus was achieved around a 5-point IGA scale including morphologic descriptions, and content validity was established. Survey 1 showed strong interrater reliability (Kendall's coefficient of concordance W [Kendall's W], 0.809; intraclass correlation [ICC], 0.817) and excellent agreement (weighted kappa, 0.857). Survey 2, completed 5 months after training of dermatologists, showed improvements in scale reliability (Kendall's W, 0.819; ICC, 0.852; weighted kappa, 0.889). In this study, 627 investigators completed vIGA-AD training and certification., Limitations: Ratings were assessed on photographs., Conclusion: A validated IGA scale and training module were developed with the intent of harmonizing assessment of disease severity in AD trials. Strong reliability and excellent agreement between assessments were observed., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Introduction: To explore the relationship of pain and fatigue with daily activity and work productivity in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients from the baricitinib clinical trial, RA-BEAM., Methods: In RA-BEAM, a double-blind phase 3 study, patients were randomized 3:3:2 to placebo (n = 488), baricitinib 4 mg once daily (n = 487), or adalimumab 40 mg biweekly (n = 330) with background methotrexate. The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) measured fatigue and the pain visual analog scale (0-100 mm) assessed pain. Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire-RA measured daily activity and work productivity. At weeks 12 and 24, pain was assessed using pain reduction (< 30%, 30% to < 50%, ≥ 50%) and overall pain score; clinically relevant FACIT-F changes were assessed by values < 3.56 and ≥ 3.56 and the FACIT-F normative value score (< 40.1, ≥ 40.1). Pairwise comparisons between pain/fatigue reduction groups were assessed using ANCOVA with pooled data on daily activity and work productivity. A mediator analysis with pain, fatigue, and disease activity measured their contribution to daily activity and work productivity. Data were pooled from all patients for most analyses, and baricitinib-treated patients were assessed as a sensitivity analysis., Results: Reductions in pain (≥ 50%) and fatigue (≥ 3.56) had significant (p ≤ 0.001) effects on daily activity and work productivity improvement at weeks 12 and 24. Reductions in pain, fatigue, and disease activity accounted for most of the improvements in daily activity and work productivity. At the lowest levels of remaining pain (≤ 10 mm) at weeks 12 and 24, however, fatigue did not appear to impact work productivity. Similar trends were observed with baricitinib-treated patients., Conclusions: Reductions in pain and fatigue were associated with improved daily activity and work productivity for all RA patients and for baricitinib-treated patients in RA-BEAM., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01710358., Funding: Incyte Corporation and Eli Lilly and Company.

Introduction: Many rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients do not achieve their treatment goals and experience symptoms that affect psychosocial outcomes and daily activities. This study aimed to identify and quantify the unmet needs perceived by US patients with RA currently taking a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)., Methods: A cross-sectional, web-based survey was conducted with RA patients recruited through CreakyJoints, an online patient support community, and ArthritisPower ® , an online patient research registry, from December 2017 to January 2018. Participant patients were aged ≥ 21 years, failed ≥ 1 DMARDs, and were receiving their current DMARD(s) for ≥ 6 months; they answered 50 questions about treatment history, RA symptoms, and flares and completed the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID) questionnaire and the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM). Treatment satisfaction was defined by a TSQM global satisfaction score ≥ 80., Results: Of 415 patients screened, 258 (62%) were eligible and completed the survey; 87% were women, and 87% white, with mean (SD) age of 54.5 (11.4) years. A total of 232 patients (90%) had current or past biologic DMARD (bDMARD) use, with 67% currently on a bDMARD, 65% on ≥ 1 conventional synthetic DMARD, and 40% on methotrexate. Forty-three percent of patients reported daily/almost daily use of prescription pain medications, and 44% reported a current flare. Mean (SD) TSQM scores were 59 [20] for effectiveness, 59 [26] for side effects, 72 [18] for convenience, and 65 [21] for global satisfaction. The mean (SD) RAID overall score was 5.1 (2.0) on a 0-10 scale. Only 26% (67 patients) were satisfied with their RA treatment. Patients not satisfied with treatment reported higher RAID scores overall and by domain, and approximately half reported a current flare., Conclusions: Results from this real-world survey suggest that three-fourths of RA patients are not satisfied with treatments, which include bDMARDs. Patients continued to experience bothersome symptoms that impacted their daily activities and life. There remains a need for improved disease management among currently treated RA patients., Funding: Eli Lilly and Company (Indianapolis, IN, USA).

Background: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common skin disorder characterized by chronic inflammation, altered skin barrier function, and inflammatory cell skin infiltration that decreases health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The study objective was to understand the patient perspective of AD burden and determine suitable patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures., Methods: This mixed methods study involved the collection of qualitative and quantitative information from adults (≥ 18 years old) and adolescents (12 - 17 years old) with clinician-confirmed AD regarding their experiences of AD symptoms and its impact on HRQoL. The first part of the study included three stages: in-person concept elicitation (CE) interviews, a 2-week daily electronic diary (eDiary) study, and in-person cognitive debriefing (CD) interviews. An Itch numeric rating scale (NRS) (v1.0) and a Skin Pain NRS (v1.0) evaluation during CD interviews required participants to think about their 'worst' itch and 'worst' skin pain in the past 24 h. Other PRO measures allowed for psychometric testing. The second part of the study involved telephone-depth interviews (TDIs) and qualitative feedback from participants who had not participated in the CD interviews. Qualitative data were thematically analyzed. Psychometric evaluation of NRS measures was performed using eDiary data., Results: In the CE interviews, itch and/or itching and skin pain were the most prevalent symptoms consistently discussed by participants. Both NRS measures demonstrated strong psychometric reliability and were applicable across ages with suitable concurrent validity. During the CD interviews, some participants focused their answers on their 'average' itch/itching in the past 24 h, rather than their 'worst' itch. Some participants answered the Skin Pain NRS thinking about general pain or other types of pain, rather than skin pain specifically. Consequently, modifications to both measures addressed these issues and re-tested as paper-and-pen versions in subsequent TDIs. Itch NRS (v2.0) modifications helped participants focus on their worst itching. Most participants preferred Skin Pain NRS v2.0b, which included skin pain descriptors., Conclusions: Itching and skin pain are the most important and relevant AD symptoms. The Itch NRS (v2.0) and Skin Pain NRS (v2.0b) appear to be appropriate endpoints for the assessment of itching and skin pain severity for clinical trials with adults and adolescents with AD.

After publication of the original article [1], the authors have notified us of an error in language used in the text.

Background: Baricitinib, an oral selective inhibitor of Janus kinase 1 and Janus kinase 2, modulates proinflammatory cytokine signaling., Objectives: The efficacy and safety of baricitinib were evaluated in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD)., Methods: In this phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 124 patients with moderate-to-severe AD applied topical corticosteroids (TCSs) for 4 weeks before randomization to once-daily placebo, 2 mg of baricitinib, or 4 mg of baricitinib for 16 weeks. Use of TCSs was permitted during the study. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving at least a 50% reduction in the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI-50) compared with placebo., Results: Significantly more patients who received baricitinib, 4 mg, achieved EASI-50 than did patients receiving placebo (61% vs 37% [P = .027]) at 16 weeks. The difference between the proportion of patients receiving baricitinib, 2 or 4 mg, who achieved EASI-50 and the proportion of patients receiving placebo and achieving EASI-50 was significant as early as week 4. Baricitinib also improved pruritus and sleep loss. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 24 of the patients receiving placebo (49%), 17 of those receiving 2 mg of baricitinib (46%), and 27 of those receiving 4 mg of baricitinib (71%)., Limitations: A TCS standardization period before randomization reduced disease severity, limiting the ability to compare results with those of baricitinib monotherapy. Longer studies are required to confirm baricitinib's efficacy and safety in patients with AD., Conclusions: Baricitinib used with TCSs reduced inflammation and pruritus in patients with moderate-to-severe AD., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is associated with significantly diminished health-related quality of life. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are considered important in RA; however, some symptoms such as morning joint stiffness (MJS) and fatigue that are considered important by patients are not captured by the American College of Rheumatology "core set" measures for RA trials. The US Food and Drug Administration has endorsed electronic capture of clinical trial data including PROs, and electronic PRO (ePRO) systems may lead to more accurate and complete data capture, improved compliance, and patient acceptance compared with paper-based methods. Our objective was to assess the implementation of ePRO measures of Duration and Severity of MJS, Severity of Worst Tiredness, and Severity of Worst Joint Pain in baricitinib RA-BEAM and RA-BUILD phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs)., Methods: A daily electronic diary (handheld device; Invivodata®, Inc.) was utilized to capture PRO data in the RCTs. Three "reporting window" options were incorporated to accommodate differences in patients' routine daily schedules, and alarms were programmed for each reporting window. Duration of MJS was recorded in "hours and minutes," and Severity of MJS, Worst Tiredness, and Worst Joint Pain were captured on a 0 to 10 rating scale, with a higher score indicating more severe symptoms. The patients and site staff were trained to use the daily electronic diary., Results: Patients with moderately to severely active RA used the daily electronic diary in the RA-BEAM study (N = 1305) and RA-BUILD study (N = 684). The average compliance, calculated as total days completed by patients compared with total days expected to complete the diary, through Week 12 was high (RA-BEAM 94% patients; RA-BUILD 93% patients), potentially attributable to appropriate training, clarity of instructions, simple user interface, and electronic device design. Identified process challenges included non-timely issuance of the device, low battery, inadequate training of patients before data collection, inappropriate diary set-up, and first response entry 1 day after the baseline visit., Conclusions: High compliance rates support the use of the daily electronic PRO diary in large RCTs. Despite the anticipated issues, the daily electronic diary is expected to reduce recall bias and improve the quality of PRO data collection., Trial Registration: RA-BEAM ( NCT01710358 ) and RA-BUILD ( NCT01721057 ).

Background: The objectives of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to compare the survival, toxicity, and quality of life of patients treated with necitumumab in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin. These agents were investigated in published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the first-line setting., Methods: The systematic review was executed on January 27, 2015, and updated on August 21, 2016, using a pre-specified search strategy. Searches were conducted using PubMed, Medline, and EMBASE, with supplemental searches using the Evidence Based Medicine Reviews and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify RCTs published in English from 1995-2016 and reporting at least one of the primary outcomes [overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity, or quality of life] in patients who received first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic squamous NSCLC. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale and Cochrane risk of bias tool, respectively. A Baysian network meta-analysis was performed on the primary outcomes. Hazard ratios (HRs) were evaluated for the primary analysis; secondary analyses were conducted using median OS data. Planned sensitivity analyses were conducted including reanalysis using a Frequentist approach and limiting analyses to subsets based on clinical and demographic covariates., Results: The systematic literature review resulted in identification of 4,016 unique publications; 40 publications (35 unique trials) were eligible for inclusion. Eight studies connected to a common network for the OS analysis using HR data. The majority of studies were not limited to squamous NSCLC, thus analyzable data were limited to a subset of data within the published trials. Carboplatin + S-1 and necitumumab in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin were associated with lower HRs for OS versus all other comparators. Nine studies connected to the network for the PFS analysis in which necitumumab in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin was associated with the lowest HR. Data were not available to analyze toxicity or quality of life., Conclusions: Although the results suggest that carboplatin + S-1 and necitumumab in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin may have value in terms of OS versus other comparators, the results should be interpreted with caution due to the limited number of studies (with few focused exclusively on squamous NSCLC) and wide credible intervals., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors are employees or retired employees of Eli Lilly and Company.

Background: Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus have substantial unmet medical need. Baricitinib is an oral selective Janus kinase (JAK)1 and JAK2 inhibitor that we hypothesised might have therapeutic benefit in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus., Methods: In this double-blind, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, 24-week phase 2 study, patients were recruited from 78 centres in 11 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had a diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus, and had active disease involving skin or joints. We randomly assigned patients (1:1:1) to receive once-daily baricitinib 2 mg, baricitinib 4 mg, or placebo for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving resolution of arthritis or rash at week 24, as defined by Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index-2000 (SLEDAI-2K). Efficacy and safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02708095., Findings: Between March 24, 2016, and April 27, 2017, 314 patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo (n=105), baricitinib 2 mg (n=105), or baricitinib 4 mg (n=104). At week 24, resolution of SLEDAI-2K arthritis or rash was achieved by 70 (67%) of 104 patients receiving baricitinib 4 mg (odds ratio [OR] vs placebo 1·8, 95% CI 1·0-3·3; p=0·0414) and 61 (58%) of 105 patients receiving baricitinib 2 mg (OR 1·3, 0·7-2·3; p=0·39). Adverse events were reported in 68 (65%) patients in the placebo group, 75 (71%) patients in the baricitinib 2 mg group, and 76 (73%) patients in the baricitinib 4 mg group. Serious adverse events were reported in ten (10%) patients receiving baricitinib 4 mg, 11 (10%) receiving baricitinib 2 mg, and five (5%) receiving placebo; no deaths were reported. Serious infections were reported in six (6%) patients with baricitinib 4 mg, two (2%) with baricitinib 2 mg, and one (1%) with placebo., Interpretation: The baricitinib 4 mg dose, but not the 2 mg dose, significantly improved the signs and symptoms of active systemic lupus erythematosus in patients who were not adequately controlled despite standard of care therapy, with a safety profile consistent with previous studies of baricitinib. This study provides the foundation for future phase 3 trials of JAK1/2 inhibition with baricitinib as a new potential oral therapy for systemic lupus erythematosus., Funding: Eli Lilly and Company., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: To assess the measurement properties of two single-item patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures that assessed the length of time (in minutes) and severity of morning joint stiffness (MJS) experienced each day., Methods: Data from two Phase 3, randomized placebo-controlled (and active-controlled [RA-BEAM]), clinical studies assessing the safety and efficacy of baricitinib in adults with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were used to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Duration of MJS and Severity of MJS PROs., Results: Test-retest reliability of Duration of MJS and Severity of MJS was supported through large intraclass correlation coefficients among stable patients (coefficient range for both studies: 0.88 to 0.93). In support of construct validity, moderate correlations were evidenced between Duration of MJS and other related patient- and clinician-reported assessments of RA symptoms and patient functioning, whereas moderate-to-strong correlations were evidenced between these same patient- and clinician-reported assessments and Severity of MJS. Statistically significant differences between the median and mean values of Duration of MJS and Severity of MJS for differing categories of RA disease severity supported known-groups validity. Finally, large and statistically significant differences in change scores from Day 1 to Week 12 for patients defined as responders versus non-responders using the American College of Rheumatology 20 criteria supported the responsiveness of both PROs., Conclusion: Duration of MJS and Severity of MJS PROs demonstrated reliability, validity, and responsiveness in adults with moderately to severely active RA, supporting the measurement of these key symptoms in clinical trials.

Background: To assess the reliability, validity, and responsiveness to treatment change of the single-item measure, Severity of Worst Tiredness, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA)., Methods: Data from two Phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled (RA-BUILD; and active-controlled [RA-BEAM]), clinical studies of the efficacy of baricitinib in adults with moderately to severely active RA were used. The psychometric properties of the single-item measure, Severity of Worst Tiredness, were assessed, including test-retest reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, known-groups validity, and responsiveness, using other patient- and clinician-reported outcomes frequently assessed in RA patients., Results: Test-retest reliability of the Severity of Worst Tiredness was supported through large intraclass correlation coefficients (0.89 ≤ ICC ≤ 0.91). Moderate-to-large correlations were observed between this patient-reported outcome (PRO) and other related patient- and clinician-reported assessments of RA symptoms and patient functioning, supporting construct validity of the measure (│r│ ≥ 0.41). The instrument also displayed known-groups validity through statistically significant differences between mean values of the Severity of Worst Tiredness defined using other indicators of RA severity. Finally, responsiveness was supported by large and statistically significant differences in change scores from Day 1 to Week 12 for patients comparing responders and nonresponders using the American College of Rheumatology 20 (ACR20) criteria., Conclusion: The Severity of Worst Tiredness PRO demonstrated adequate reliability, validity, and responsiveness in clinical trials of adults with moderately to severely active RA and is fit for purpose in this patient population.

Background: To assess the effect of baricitinib on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to methotrexate (MTX)., Methods: In this double-blind phase 3 study, patients were randomised 3:3:2 to placebo (n=488), baricitinib 4 mg once daily (n=487), or adalimumab 40 mg biweekly (n=330) with background MTX. PROs included the SF-36, EuroQol 5-D (EQ-5D) index scores and visual analogue scale, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), patient's assessment of pain and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire-Rheumatoid Arthritis (WPAI-RA), and measures collected in electronic patient daily diaries: duration and severity of morning joint stiffness (MJS), Worst Ttiredness and Worst Joint Pain. The primary study endpoint was at week 12. Treatment comparisons were assessed with logistic regression for categorical measures or analysis of covariance for continuous variables., Results: Compared with placebo and adalimumab, baricitinib showed statistically significant improvements (p≤0.05) in HAQ-DI, PtGA, pain, FACIT-F, SF-36 physical component score, EQ-5D index scores and WPAI-RA daily activity at week 12. Improvements were maintained for measures assessed to week 52. Statistically significant improvement in patient diary measures (MJS duration and severity), worst tiredness and worst joint pain were observed for baricitinib versus placebo and adalimumab at week 12 (p≤0.05)., Conclusions: Baricitinib provided significantly greater improvement in most PROs compared with placebo and adalimumab, including physical function MJS, pain, fatigue and quality of life. Improvement was maintained to the end of the study (week 52)., Trial Registration: NCT01710358., Competing Interests: Competing interests: ECK has received grant/research support, consulting support or speaker bureau fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Biotest, Bristol Myers Squibb, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., Janssen, Eli Lilly and Company, Genentech, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis and UCB. PCT has received grant/research support or consulting support from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, Galapagos, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Pfizer, Takeda and UCB. YT has received grant/research support or speaker bureau fees from AbbVie, Astellas, Asahi Kasei, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chugai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly and Company, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Kyowa-Kirin, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, MSD, Pfizer, Santen, Takeda, Taisho-Toyama, Teijin and UCB. CG, AMD, TR, SdB, VA and BL are employees of Eli Lilly and Company, and all except AMD are shareholders of Eli Lilly and Company. AD is a consultant for Eli Lilly and Company. JVZ is a consultant for Eli Lilly and Company. JACC is a consultant for Eli Lilly and Company. MEW has received grant/research support or consulting support from AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Canfite, Corrona, Crescendo Bioscience, Genzyme, Idera, Infinity, Lycera, Eli Lilly and Company, Medimmune, Merck, Merck/serona, Momenta, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi and UCB., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Background and Objective: People with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) often interrupt basal insulin treatment soon after initiation. This study aimed to describe the experiences during and after basal insulin initiation among people with T2DM with different persistence patterns., Methods: Adults with T2DM from France, Germany, Spain, UK, US, Brazil, and Japan were identified from consumer panels for an online survey. Respondents who initiated basal insulin 3-24 months prior to survey date were categorized as continuers (no gaps of ≥7 days in insulin treatment); interrupters (first gap ≥7 days within 6 months of initiation and restarted insulin); and discontinuers (stopped insulin for ≥7 days within 6 months of initiation without restarting)., Results: Among 942 participants, continuers were older than interrupters and discontinuers (46, 37, and 38 years, respectively, p < .01). Continuers reported having fewer concerns before and after insulin initiation than interrupters and discontinuers, while interrupters had the most concerns. Continuers also reported fewer challenges during the first week of insulin use. Continuers were more likely to respond that insulin use had a positive impact on specific aspects of life than interrupters and discontinuers, for example on glycemic control (73.0%, 63.0%, and 61.8%, respectively; p < .01 vs. continuers)., Conclusion: Among people with T2DM with different persistence patterns after basal insulin initiation there were significant differences in patient characteristics and experience during and after insulin initiation. Interrupters and discontinuers more frequently reported having concerns and challenges during the initiation process, negative impacts after initiation, and less improvement in glycemic control than continuers.

Background: This study evaluates patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in a double-blind, phase III study of baricitinib as monotherapy or combined with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with no or minimal prior conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and naïve to biological DMARDs., Methods: Patients were randomized 4:3:4 to MTX administered once weekly (N = 210), baricitinib monotherapy (4 mg once daily (QD), N = 159), or combination of baricitinib (4 mg QD) and MTX (baricitinib + MTX, N = 215). PROs included the Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), patient's assessment of pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), duration of morning joint stiffness (MJS), worst joint pain, worst tiredness, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-Rheumatoid Arthritis (WPAI-RA), Short Form 36 version 2, Acute (SF-36); and EuroQol 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D) Health State Profile. Comparisons were assessed with analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and logistic regression models., Results: Compared to MTX, patients in both baricitinib groups reported greater improvement (p ≤ 0.01) in HAQ-DI, PtGA, pain, fatigue, worst join pain, SF-36 physical component score, and EQ-5D at weeks 24 and 52. For the SF-36 mental component score, patients in both baricitinib groups reported statistically significant improvements (p ≤ 0.01) at week 52 compared to MTX-treated patients. Statistically significant improvements (p ≤ 0.05) were observed with the WPAI-RA for the baricitinib groups vs. MTX at week 24 and for the WPAI-RA daily activity and work productivity measures for baricitinib + MTX at week 52., Conclusions: In this study, baricitinib alone or in combination with MTX, when used as initial therapy, resulted in significant improvement compared to MTX in the majority of the pre-specified PRO measures., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01711359 . Registered on 18 October 2012.

Objectives: To assess baricitinib on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis, who had insufficient response or intolerance to ≥1 tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis) or other biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs)., Methods: In this double-blind phase III study, patients were randomised to once-daily placebo or baricitinib 2 or 4 mg for 24 weeks. PROs included the Short Form-36, EuroQol 5-D, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), patient's assessment of pain, duration of morning joint stiffness (MJS) and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire-Rheumatoid Arthritis. Treatment comparisons were performed with logistic regression for categorical measures or analysis of covariance for continuous variables., Results: 527 patients were randomised (placebo, 176; baricitinib 2 mg, 174; baricitinib 4 mg, 177). Both baricitinib-treated groups showed statistically significant improvements versus placebo in most PROs. Improvements were generally more rapid and of greater magnitude for patients receiving baricitinib 4 mg than 2 mg and were maintained to week 24. At week 24, more baricitinib-treated patients versus placebo-treated patients reported normal physical functioning (HAQ-DI <0.5; p≤0.001), reductions in fatigue (FACIT-F ≥3.56; p≤0.05), improvements in PtGA (p≤0.001) and pain (p≤0.001) and reductions in duration of MJS (p<0.01)., Conclusions: Baricitinib improved most PROs through 24 weeks compared with placebo in this study of treatment-refractory patients with previously inadequate responses to bDMARDs, including at least one TNFi. PRO results aligned with clinical efficacy data for baricitinib., Trial Registration Number: NCT01721044; Results., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Objectives: To evaluate the effect of baricitinib on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response or intolerance to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs., Methods: In this phase III study, patients were randomised 1:1:1 to placebo (N=228), baricitinib 2 mg once daily (QD, N=229) or baricitinib 4 mg QD (N=227). PROs included the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), patient's assessment of pain, measures from patient electronic daily diaries (duration and severity of morning joint stiffness (MJS), Worst Tiredness, Worst Joint Pain), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), SF-36, EuroQol 5-D index scores and visual analogue scales (VAS) and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire-RA. The primary time point for the study was week 12. Treatment comparisons were assessed with logistic regression for categorical measures and analysis of covariance for continuous variables., Results: Statistically significant improvements were observed for both baricitinib groups versus placebo in HAQ-DI, PtGA, pain, daily diary measures, EuroQoL index scores and SF-36 physical component score at week 12 and for those measures when assessed at week 24. Baricitinib 2 mg and baricitinib 4 mg were statistically significantly improved versus placebo for the EuroQoL VAS and FACIT-F, respectively, at week 24., Conclusions: Baricitinib 2 or 4 mg provided significant improvement versus placebo in PROs across different domains of RA, including physical function, MJS, fatigue, pain and quality of life., Trial Registration Number: NCT01721057; Results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: PE has received grant/research support or consulting support from Abbott, AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Takeda and UCB. RB has received research grants and/or participated in advisory boards from Abbvie, BMS, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, MSD and Roche. JMC has received research grants and speaker fees from Abbott (AbbVie), Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli-Lilly, Merck Sharp Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Schering-Plough and UCB. Y-CC has received speaker's bureau fees and/or grant research support from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company and Pfizer. CLG, AMD, SdB, JL, TR and CH-CC are full-time employees of Eli Lilly and Company and may own stock or stock options in Eli Lilly and Company. MD has received grant/research support or consulting support from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi and UCB.

Background: Initiation and titration of human regular U-500 insulin (U-500R) with a dosing algorithm of either thrice daily (TID) or twice daily (BID) improved glycemic control with fewer injections in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with high-dose, high-volume U-100 insulin. The objective of this analysis was to compare patient-reported outcomes between U-500R TID and BID treatment groups in this titration-to-target randomized, clinical trial., Methods: In this 24-week, open-label, parallel trial, 325 patients were randomized to TID (n = 162) or BID (n = 163) U-500R after a 4-week lead-in period (screening). The Treatment Related Impact Measure-Diabetes (TRIM-D) and EQ-5D-5L questionnaires were administered at screening, baseline/randomization, and endpoint (24 weeks). The Visual Analog Scale-Injection Site Pain (VAS-ISP) was assessed at baseline/randomization, 12 weeks, and endpoint., Results: The TRIM-D showed statistically significant improvements in overall scores from baseline to endpoint for both BID and TID groups, most domains in the TID group, and all domains in the BID group. The BID group achieved better scores than the TID patients in overall and in treatment burden, daily life, and compliance domains (p < .05). EQ-5D-5L index scores showed no statistically significant differences for TID and BID groups (and no differences between TID and BID groups) from baseline to endpoint. VAS-ISP scores improved for both treatment groups (-5.60 TID; -6.47 BID; p < .05 for both) from baseline to endpoint., Conclusions: U500 can be successfully titrated for improved glycemic control using BID and TID regimens with diabetes-specific Patient-Reported Outcomes showing improvements in both arms; however, BID had better scores than TID in overall, treatment burden, daily life, and compliance domains., Trial Registration: These secondary analyses are based on the study first received January 22, 2013 and reported in Clinical Trial Registry No.: NCT01774968 .

Background: The Impact of Weight on Self-Perceptions Questionnaire (IW-SP) assesses an individual's self-perception related to his or her weight. The primary objective of this study was to provide evidence of the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the IW-SP., Materials and Methods: Study participants were individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and obesity enrolled in clinical weight-loss programs in the United States. Data were obtained for clinical measures, IW-SP, and other patient-reported outcome measures. An intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cronbach's α were calculated for test-retest reliability and internal consistency, respectively. For validity, correlations and t tests were performed. For responsiveness, baseline and 6-month data for a subgroup of patients were analyzed using the paired t test and calculation of effect size (ES)., Results: Reliability data for 106 study participants (mean age, 52 years; 69% female; 31% white; mean body mass index, 38 kg/m(2)) yielded an ICC of 0.85 and Cronbach's α values of >0.89. IW-SP scores were associated with obesity-related quality of life, mental health, and vitality (r>0.50, P<0.001). In the subgroup (n=40) used to estimate responsiveness, weight was significantly less at end point than at baseline (mean, baseline=231.9 vs. end point=222.0 pounds; P<0.001; ES=0.23), and IW-SP scores were significantly better than at baseline (mean, baseline=61.0 vs. end point=72.1 [on a scale of 0-100]; P=0.01; ES=0.34). Mean IW-SP change scores significantly discriminated between those achieving >5% body weight loss and those who achieved <5% (mean change, 23.6 vs. 5.7; P=0.03)., Conclusions: The IW-SP has demonstrated reliability, validity, and responsiveness in individuals with T2DM and obesity, thereby making it a potentially valuable tool in the evaluation of weight-loss interventions targeted toward patients with T2DM.

Background: There is a high unmet need for effective treatments for patients with squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Eli Lilly and Company is conducting a phase III, randomized, multicenter, open-label study of gemcitabine plus cisplatin plus necitumumab (GC + N) versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) for the first-line treatment of patients with stage IV squamous NSCLC. Given GC is not the only treatment commonly used for the treatment of squamous NSCLC, this study was designed to compare the survival, toxicity, and quality of life outcomes of current treatment strategies for squamous NSCLC in the first-line setting., Methods/design: A systematic review and meta-analysis (including indirect comparisons) of treatments used in squamous NSCLC will be conducted to assess the clinical efficacy (overall and progression-free survival), health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and safety (grade 3-4 toxicity) of GC + N compared to other treatments used in squamous NSCLC. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines will be followed for all aspects of this study. A systematic literature review will be conducted to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating chemotherapy treatment in first-line NSCLC. Eligible articles will be restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) among chemotherapy-naïve advanced NSCLC cancer patients that report outcome data (survival, toxicity, or quality of life) for patients with squamous histology. Following data extraction and validation, data consistency and study heterogeneity will be assessed. A network meta-analysis will be conducted based on the available hazard ratios for overall and progression-free survival, odds ratios for published toxicity data, and mean difference of HRQoL scales. Sensitivity analyses will be conducted., Discussion: This is a presentation of the study protocol only. Results and conclusions are pending completion of this study., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42014008968.

Background: Complications associated with diabetes are a major contributor to the burden of the disease. To better inform decision modelling, there is a need for cost estimates of specific diabetes-related complications, stratified by diabetes type and patient age group., Objective: To obtain direct medical costs of managing and treating diabetes-related complications over a 2-year period, for adults and children with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), using data from a large commercially insured US subscriber database., Methods: We examined records from a large US multi-payer claims database to identify patients with any diabetes-related complications included in nine pre-specified categories, filed between January 2009 and September 2010, and with pre-index evidence of T1DM or T2DM. Patients were required to have continuous health plan enrolment 12 months before and 24 months after each index complication. Patients were classified into cohorts based on their diabetes type and age status at the time of the complication. The direct medical cost associated with each complication was calculated for the 12- and 24-month follow-up periods. Mean paid and allowed total costs were calculated and inflation-adjusted to the year 2011., Results: Of the 119,715 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 211 (0.2 %) were categorized as children with T1DM, 55 (0.05 %) as children with T2DM, 6,227 (5.2 %) as adults with T1DM and 113,222 (94.6 %) as adults with T2DM. The respective mean cohort ages were 13.5, 14.9, 48.5 and 58 years. Proteinuria/albuminuria was the most common complication for T1DM and T2DM child cohorts, with this complication occurring in almost one third of these children. Among the child cohorts, renal disease accounted for the highest mean paid cost for T1DM patients (US$6,053) whereas for T2DM patients, the complication associated with the highest mean paid cost was lactic acidosis (US$25,053). For the adult T1DM cohort, the complications with the highest occurrence and highest mean total paid cost were non-proliferative retinopathy (40.3 %) and renal disease (US$28,076), respectively. Similarly, for the adult T2DM cohort, these complications were neuropathy (26.8 %) and peritoneal dialysis (US$32,826)., Conclusion: With the continuing and increasing interest in child and adult T1DM and T2DM, stakeholders will need relevant and timely information to guide treatment decision making. This cost research may directly inform the economic models that are often developed to better identify, understand and manage key economic considerations that drive the costs of this chronic disease.