Search

Background: Chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) is a functional gastrointestinal disorder with an estimated prevalence of 16% in the USA; however, the humanistic and economic burden of CIC is poorly characterized. Aim: This systematic literature review aimed to assess the humanistic and economic burden of CIC in adults in the USA. Methods: Two systematic literature searches of English-language publications on the humanistic and economic burden of CIC in adults in the USA were conducted using electronic databases and other resources. Both searches included the terms "chronic idiopathic constipation" and "functional constipation". Specific terms used in the search on humanistic burden included "quality of life", "SF-36", "SF-12", and "PAC-QOL"; search terms for economic burden included "cost", "resource use", "absenteeism", and "productivity". Results: Overall, 16 relevant articles were identified. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) appeared to be reduced in patients with CIC compared with controls and the general US population. Abdominal (r=0.33– 0.49), stool (r=0.23– 0.33), and rectal symptoms (r=0.53) appeared to be associated with reduced HRQoL. Younger age and female sex were associated with reduced overall HRQoL and greater symptom severity. Direct outpatient costs were higher in patients with CIC than those without CIC (US$6284 vs US$5254). Patients with CIC and abdominal symptoms reported more days of disrupted productivity per month than those without abdominal symptoms (3.2 days vs 1.2 days). The overall prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine use by patients with CIC was similar to that in the general US population. Conclusion: The reduced HRQoL and increased costs associated with CIC indicate unmet therapeutic need in this disorder. Further research is required to better understand the humanistic and economic burden of CIC in the USA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Current knowledge of the reasons for patients' preference for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment modes is limited. This study was designed to identify preferences for four treatment modes, and to obtain in-depth information on the reasons for these preferences. Patients and Methods: In this multi-national, cross-sectional, qualitative study, in-depth interviews were conducted with adult patients with RA in the United States, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Brazil. Patients' strength of preference was evaluated using a 100-point allocation task (0– 100; 100=strongest) across four treatment modes: oral, self-injection, clinic-injection, and infusion. Qualitative descriptive analysis methods were used to identify, characterize, and summarize patterns found in the interview data relating to reasons for these preferences. Results: 100 patients were interviewed (female, 75.0%; mean age, 53.9 years; mean 11.6 years since diagnosis). Among the four treatment modes, oral administration was allocated the highest mean (standard deviation) preference points (47.3 [33.1]) and was ranked first choice by the greatest percentage of patients (57.0%), followed by self-injection (29.7 [27.7]; 29.0%), infusion (15.4 [24.6]; 16.0%), and clinic-injection (7.5 [14.1]; 2.0%). Overall, 56.0% of patients had a "strong" first-choice preference (ie, point allocation ≥ 70); most of these patients chose oral (62.5%) vs self-injection (23.2%), infusion (10.7%), or clinic-injection (3.6%). Speed and/or ease of administration were the most commonly reported reasons for patients choosing oral (52.6%) or self-injection (55.2%). The most common reasons for patients not choosing oral or self-injection were not wanting to take another pill (37.2%) and avoiding pain due to needles (46.5%), respectively. Conclusion: These data report factors important to patients regarding preferences for RA treatment modes. Patients may benefit from discussions with their healthcare professionals and/or patient support groups, regarding RA treatment modes, to facilitate shared decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• An improved and comprehensive technique for measuring/assessing self-reported physical function is needed in MS. • We have developed a new PROMIS short form for assessing physical function in MS. • The new short form demonstrated validity and reliability across US and UK MS populations. • A preliminary minimal important difference estimate and score interpretation guidance are provided. A valid, sensitive patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure of physical function (PF) for people with multiple sclerosis (MS) would have substantial value in routine care and clinical research. We now describe development of the PROMISnq Short Form v2.0 PF – Multiple Sclerosis 15a [PROMISnq PF(MS)15a] for assessing PF in relapsing and progressive MS. Also, the validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the PROMISnq PF(MS)15a is evaluated, minimal important difference (MID) thresholds for score change estimated and a score interpretation guide developed. A mixed-methods sequential design was employed. Relevant PF concepts were elicited through semi-structured interviews with people with relapsing MS, and then mapped to the PROMIS PF item bank. Measurement experts integrated results from interviews with people with MS and input from a panel of neurologists to generate a draft short form. Relevance and comprehensiveness of the draft short form were assessed in cognitive debriefing interviews with people with relapsing or progressive MS. Subsequently, item reduction and evaluation of psychometric properties were performed in two observational studies: a cross-sectional study in the US (n = 296), and a 96-week longitudinal study in the UK MS Register cohort (n = 558). The main outcomes and measures are estimates of: known-groups validity, convergent validity, reliability, responsiveness; MID for worsening. Factor analyses supported the unidimensionality of the newly derived 15-item short form. Cronbach's alpha (≥ 0.97) and intraclass correlation coefficient (≥ 0.97) of test-retest scores (5–27 days) indicated strong reliability. Convergent validity was demonstrated by moderate-to-strong correlations with scores on related PRO measures. Scores discriminated among patient groups classified by levels of physical health and other criteria. Score changes of 2.3–2.7 points are proposed as MID criteria for minimal worsening in PF. PROMISnq PF(MS)15a demonstrated reliability, validity and sensitivity to change. Input from patients and clinicians ensured the content is comprehensive and relevant for people with MS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]