Search

Background: Abrocitinib, an oral, once-daily Janus kinase 1-selective inhibitor, improved itch severity, sleep, and work productivity versus placebo in patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate relationships among itch, sleep, and work productivity in the phase III JADE MONO-2 clinical trial. Methods: A repeated-measures longitudinal model was used to examine relationships between itch (using the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale [PP-NRS] or Nighttime Itch Scale [NTIS]) and sleep disturbance/loss (using the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure sleep item and SCORing AD Sleep Loss Visual Analog Scale) and, separately, between itch and work productivity (using the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment-Atopic Dermatitis Version 2.0 questionnaire). Mediation modelling was used to investigate the effect of treatment (abrocitinib vs placebo) on work impairment via improvements in itch and sleep. Results: The relationships between itch/sleep and itch/work productivity were approximately linear. PP-NRS scores of 0, 4–6, and 10 were associated with 0 days, 3–4 days, and 7 days per week of disturbed sleep, respectively. PP-NRS or NTIS scores of 0–1, 4–5, and 10 were associated with 0–10%, 20–30%, and >50% overall work impairment, respectively. Seventy-five percent of the effect of abrocitinib on reducing work impairment was indirectly mediated by improvement in itch, followed by sleep. Conclusion: These results quantitatively demonstrate that reducing itch severity is associated with improvements in sleep and work productivity. Empirical evidence for the mechanism of action of abrocitinib showed that itch severity is improved, which reduces sleep loss/sleep disruption and, in turn, improves work productivity. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03575871 Plain Language Summary: Atopic dermatitis (AD), also called atopic eczema, is a common skin disease that is associated with itch and reduced quality of life. Abrocitinib, a recently approved medicine for AD, was shown in clinical trials to improve itch, which is considered the most bothersome symptom to people with AD. Abrocitinib also improved sleep outcomes and work productivity in people with moderate or severe AD. It is unknown if improvement in itch can lead to improvement in sleep and work productivity. We analyzed data from the JADE MONO-2 study, which included 391 people who received treatment with abrocitinib or placebo for 12 weeks. We used mathematical modelling to study relationships between itch and sleep or work productivity. We also wanted to study if the improvements in itch and sleep with abrocitinib treatment had an impact on work productivity. We found that a relationship existed between itch, sleep disturbance, and work impairment; as itch improved, so too did sleep disturbance and work impairment. When people were treated with abrocitinib, they experienced relief from itch, which improved sleep, which in turn reduced work productivity loss. Larger and longer studies are needed to confirm these results. This analysis further informs the expectations of patients with moderate or severe AD as it relates to progression of symptom relief after treatment with abrocitinib. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Topical treatments for atopic dermatitis (AD) used reactively often fail to achieve lasting disease control; many of these therapies are associated with safety concerns that limit long-term use. Crisaborole ointment, 2%, is a nonsteroidal phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor for the treatment of mild-to-moderate AD that has potential as a long-term maintenance therapy. Objective: The aim was to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of crisaborole once daily (QD) compared to vehicle QD as a maintenance therapy to reduce the incidence of flares in patients with AD who previously responded to crisaborole twice daily (BID). Methods: CrisADe CONTROL was a randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled, 52-week, phase III study of patients aged ≥ 3 months with mild-to-moderate AD involving ≥ 5% treatable body surface area. Eligible patients received crisaborole BID during an open-label run-in period of up to 8 weeks. Responders were randomly assigned in the double-blind maintenance period to receive either crisaborole QD or vehicle QD. Responders were defined as patients who achieved Investigator's Static Global Assessment (ISGA) success (ISGA score of 0 [clear] or 1 [almost clear] with a ≥ 2-grade improvement) and ≥ 50% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index total score (EASI-50) from baseline. Patients who experienced a flare (ISGA score ≥ 2) during the double-blind maintenance period switched to crisaborole BID for up to 12 weeks. During this period, patients were assessed every 4 weeks; if the flare resolved (ISGA score ≤ 1), patients resumed their assigned treatment. The primary endpoint was flare-free maintenance until onset of the first flare. Key secondary endpoints were number of flare-free days, number of flares, and maintenance of pruritus response until onset of the first flare. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was also analyzed. Results: Overall, 497 patients entered the open-label run-in period with crisaborole BID, of which 270 patients were randomized into the 52-week double-blind maintenance period of the study. Of the 270 patients, 135 were randomly assigned to the crisaborole QD group and 135 were randomly assigned to the vehicle QD group. Median time of flare-free maintenance was longer for patients who received crisaborole versus vehicle (111 vs 30 days, respectively; p = 0.0034). The mean number of flare-free days was higher for patients who received crisaborole versus vehicle (234.0 vs 199.4 days, respectively; p = 0.0346). The mean number of flares was lower for patients who received crisaborole versus vehicle (0.95 vs 1.36, respectively; p = 0.0042). No clear trend was observed in maintenance of pruritus response between crisaborole- and vehicle-treated patients. Crisaborole was well tolerated, with no new or unexpected safety findings when used as maintenance treatment. Conclusions: Crisaborole QD was effective and well tolerated for long-term maintenance treatment and flare reduction in adult and pediatric patients with mild-to-moderate AD. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04040192, 31 July 2019. Plain Language Summary: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is an immuno-inflammatory skin disease that can last a long time. It causes skin lesions and intense itching. Topical AD treatments used reactively often fail to control the disease over a long period of time. Many are associated with safety concerns that limit long-term use. Crisaborole ointment is a nonsteroidal treatment for the skin and is used to treat mild-to-moderate AD. Previous studies showed that using crisaborole twice daily was effective and had few side effects in patients with mild-to-moderate AD. This study evaluated how effective and safe long-term treatment with once-daily crisaborole was compared with an ointment with no drug (vehicle). The study included patients aged ≥ 3 months with mild-to-moderate AD whose AD improved after previous treatment with twice-daily crisaborole. This study was designed to investigate how much crisaborole reduced the incidence of AD flares over 52 weeks in these patients. The study included 270 patients whose AD had improved after treatment with twice-daily crisaborole. Of these patients, 135 were randomly assigned to receive crisaborole once a day and 135 to receive vehicle once a day. Patients who received crisaborole had a significantly longer time before experiencing AD flares than those who received vehicle. Crisaborole was well tolerated, and no new or unexpected side effects were found when used as a once-daily maintenance treatment for 52 weeks. These results indicate that once-daily treatment with crisaborole could be a potential long-term maintenance treatment option in children and adults with mild-to-moderate AD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The United States Food and Drug Administration is developing a series of patient-focused drug development guidance documents regarding the collection of patient experience data, including methods for understanding treatment benefit from the patient perspective. The goal of this research was to investigate the concern that the global impression of change scale is subject to recall error and thus not optimal for use as an anchor for estimating meaningful within-person change thresholds. We explored whether memory assistance for recalling baseline status would make a difference in how study participants diagnosed with Parkinson's disease (PD) responded to a patient global impression of change (PGIC) and patient global impression static (PGIS) item. Methods: The research was completed as a secondary objective of a non-interventional 28-day (± 4 days) study among persons with Parkinson's disease and associated motor fluctuations. At baseline, participants completed the PGIS and then recorded a voice message to their future self in which they spoke about how their PD had affected their "day-to-day" activities over the preceding few days. At the final visit, the PGIC and PGIS were completed, after which participants listened to their memory assistance voice recording, and then completed both items for a second time to calculate a memory-assisted global impression static and change scores (MAGIS and MAGIC, respectively). Spearman correlations (ρ) were examined for the pre- and post- memory assistance evaluations. The degree of agreement pre- and post-memory assistance was quantified using the Shrout & Fleiss intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC [2,1]). An ICC(2,1) ≥ 0.7 served as the pre-specified criterion of acceptability for both the ρ and ICC(2,1) values. Results: Participants in the analytic sample were mean age 68.7 and mostly white (91.7%) and male (69.4%). The average length of time since PD diagnosis was 6.5 years. Correlations between the PGIS and MAGIS were ρ = 0.88; correlations between PGIC and MAGIC were ρ = 0.86. The estimated ICC(2,1) for both the PGIS/MAGIS and PGIC/MAGIC exceeded target success criterion of ICC(2,1) ≥ 0.70. Conclusion: Our results show that the MAGIS/MAGIC methodology is feasible and that memory assistance did not substantially alter the PGIS/PGIC scores at the final visit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The Investigator's Static Global Assessment (ISGA) is a 5-point rating scale that is recommended by the US Food and Drug Administration for assessing the severity of atopic dermatitis (AD), and ISGA success is a widely used endpoint in AD clinical studies. In this study, we seek to interpret the relationship of ISGA with treatment, pruritus, and quality of life (QoL) by conducting post hoc analyses of pooled data from two phase 3 crisaborole studies. Methods: Patients aged ≥ 2 years with baseline ISGA of 2 (mild) or 3 (moderate) were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive crisaborole or vehicle for 28 days. Disease severity, pruritus severity, and QoL were assessed with the ISGA, Severity of Pruritus Scale (SPS), and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI; patients aged ≥ 16 years), or Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI; patients aged 2–15 years), respectively. The effect of treatment on ISGA and the relationship between ISGA and QoL were analyzed using a longitudinal repeated-measures model. The interrelationship between treatment, disease severity, pruritus, and QoL was analyzed with a mediation model. Results: Overall, 1522 patients (crisaborole, n = 1016; vehicle, n = 506) were included. Estimated longitudinal profiles indicated changes in ISGA by day 8 were large for crisaborole (effect size [ES]: − 0.68) and small for vehicle (ES: − 0.34). There was a direct relationship between ISGA and DLQI and CDLQI severity bands in the longitudinal repeated-measures model. For both QoL mediation models, treatment effects on QoL were mediated indirectly by reduction in pruritus (DLQI, 42.4%; CDLQI, 58.1%) and disease severity (DLQI, 12.2%; CDLQI, 33.1%). Conclusions: These post hoc analyses suggest that ISGA success is a clinically meaningful endpoint associated with reduction in the severity of pruritus and improvement in QoL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Results from studies comparing health care resource use (HCRU), costs of treatment, and costeffectiveness of linezolid compared with vancomycin therapy in the treatment of hospitalized patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) nosocomial pneumonia are limited in the published literature. We therefore conducted an analysis to compare the HCRU, costs of treatment, and cost-effectiveness of linezolid compared with vancomycin in the treatment of hospitalized patients with MRSA nosocomial pneumonia using data from a Phase IV clinical trial. The economic effect of moderate to severe adverse events (MSAEs) and the development of renal failure were also evaluated. Methods: We performed a post hoc analysis of data from a Phase IV, double-blind, randomized, comparatorcontrolled, multicenter trial that compared linezolid and vancomycin treatment in patients with MRSA nosocomial pneumonia. HCRU and costs were compared based on treatment, development of MSAEs, and development of renal failure using data from the modified intent-totreat population. Predictors of costs were evaluated using generalized linear models. A piggyback cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted to assess the incremental costeffectiveness ratio of linezolid versus vancomycin, given the significantly higher clinical success of linezolid compared with vancomycin found in the trial. Findings: Overall, HCRU and costs were similar between the linezolid and vancomycin treatment groups; drug costs were significantly higher and dialysis costs significantly lower for linezolid- compared with vancomycin-treated patients. Total treatment costs were approximately $8000 higher (P = .046) for patients who developed renal failure compared with those who did not. Renal failure occurred more commonly in patients randomized to receive vancomycin (15%) compared with linezolid (4%; P < .001). Region, ventilator-associated pneumonia, clinical failure, and development of renal failure were associated with significantly higher total costs. The point estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for linezolid compared with vancomycin was $16,516 per treatment success, with linezolid dominant in 24% and dominated in o2% of bootstrapped samples. Implications: This phase 4 clinical trial conducted in patients with MRSA-confirmed nosocomial pneumonia reveals that linezolid- compared with vancomycintreated patients had similar HCRU and total overall costs. Fewer patients developed renal failure during the study while taking linezolid compared with vancomycin, and patients with a documented MSAE or renal failure had increased HCRU and costs. In summary, linezolid may be a cost-effective treatment strategy in MRSA-confirmed nosocomial pneumonia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]