Search

BackgroundThe 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).ObjectivesTo investigate the reliability, validity, responsiveness and within-patient meaningful change of the vIGA-AD.MethodsData 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.ResultsAcross 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

IntroductionAlopecia 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionSeverity of AA plays an important role in understanding the burden of illness and healthcare patterns of people living with AA.

BackgroundThe 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.MethodsBREEZE-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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsResults 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.

BackgroundAtopic 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionsItching 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.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]