Search

Background Hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl hydroxylase inhibitors (HIF-PHIs) are oral alternatives to current standard-of-care treatments for anaemia in chronic kidney disease (CKD). We conducted network meta-analyses to indirectly compare clinical outcomes for three HIF-PHIs in dialysis and non-dialysis populations with anaemia in CKD. Methods The evidence base comprised phase III, randomised, controlled trials evaluating daprodustat, roxadustat, or vadadustat. Three outcomes were evaluated: efficacy [change from baseline in haemoglobin (Hgb)], cardiovascular safety [time to first major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE)] and quality of life [change from baseline in 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) Vitality score]. Analyses were performed separately for all patients and for erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) non-users at baseline (non-dialysis population) or prevalent dialysis patients (dialysis population). Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods with non-informative priors were used to estimate the posterior probability distribution and generate pairwise treatment comparisons. Point estimates (medians of posterior distributions) and 95% credible intervals (CrI) were calculated. Results Seventeen trials were included. In non-dialysis patients, there were no clinically meaningful differences between the three HIF-PHIs with respect to Hgb change from baseline [all patients analysis (total n  = 7907): daprodustat vs. roxadustat, 0.09 g/dL (95% CrI −0.14, 0.31); daprodustat vs. vadadustat, 0.09 g/dL (−0.04, 0.21); roxadustat vs. vadadustat, 0.00 g/dL (−0.22, 0.22)] or risk of MACE [all patients analysis (total n  = 7959): daprodustat vs. roxadustat, hazard ratio (HR) 1.16 (95% CrI 0.76, 1.77); daprodustat vs. vadadustat, 0.88 (0.71, 1.09); roxadustat vs. vadadustat, 0.76 (0.50, 1.16)]. Daprodustat showed a greater increase in SF-36 Vitality compared with roxadustat [total n  = 4880; treatment difference 4.70 points (95% CrI 0.08, 9.31)]. In dialysis patients, Hgb change from baseline was higher with daprodustat and roxadustat compared with vadadustat [all patients analysis (total n  = 11 124): daprodustat, 0.34 g/dL (0.22, 0.45); roxadustat, 0.38 g/dL (0.27, 0.49)], while there were no clinically meaningful differences in the risk of MACE between the HIF-PHIs [all patients analysis (total n  = 12 320): daprodustat vs. roxadustat, HR 0.89 (0.73, 1.08); daprodustat vs. vadadustat, HR 0.99 (0.82, 1.21); roxadustat vs. vadadustat, HR 1.12 (0.92, 1.37)]. Results were similar in analyses of ESA non-users and prevalent dialysis patients. Conclusions In the setting of anaemia in CKD, indirect treatment comparisons suggest that daprodustat, roxadustat, and vadadustat are broadly clinically comparable in terms of efficacy and cardiovascular safety (precision was low for the latter), while daprodustat may be associated with reduction in fatigue to a greater extent than roxadustat. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: A well-defined and reliable patient-reported outcome instrument for COVID-19 is important for assessing symptom severity and supporting research studies. The InFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO) instrument has been expanded to include loss of taste and smell in the FLU-PRO Plus, to comprehensively cover COVID-19 symptoms. Our studies were designed to evaluate and validate the FLU-PRO Plus among patients with COVID-19. Methods: Two studies were conducted: (1) a qualitative, non-interventional, cross-sectional study of patients with COVID-19 involving hybrid concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews; (2) a psychometric evaluation of the measurement properties of FLU-PRO Plus, using data from COMET-ICE (COVID-19 Monoclonal antibody Efficacy Trial—Intent to Care Early). Results: In the qualitative interviews (n = 30), all 34 items of the FLU-PRO Plus were considered relevant to COVID-19, and participants determined the questionnaire was easily understood, well written, and comprehensive. In the psychometric evaluation (n = 845), the internal consistency reliability of FLU-PRO Plus total score was 0.94, ranging from 0.71 to 0.90 for domain scores. Reproducibility (Day 20–21) was 0.83 for total score, with domain scores of 0.67–0.89. Confirmatory factor analysis with the novel smell/taste domain demonstrated an acceptable fit to the data. Conclusion: The content, reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the FLU-PRO Plus in the COVID-19 population were supported. Our results suggest that FLU-PRO Plus is a content- and psychometrically-valid, fit-for-purpose measure which is easily understood by patients. FLU-PRO Plus is a suitable PRO measure for evaluating symptoms of COVID-19 and treatment benefit directly from the patient perspective. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.Gov: NCT04545060, September 10, 2020; retrospectively registered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), both the time needed for patients to gain symptom improvement with long-acting bronchodilator therapy and whether an early response is predictive of a sustained response is unknown. This study aimed to investigate how quickly meaningful symptom responses are seen in patients with COPD with bronchodilator therapy and whether these responses are sustained. Methods: Early MAXimisation of bronchodilation for improving COPD stability (EMAX) was a 24-week, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group trial that randomised patients to umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI), umeclidinium or salmeterol. Daily Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RS:COPD) score and rescue salbutamol use were captured via an electronic diary and analysed initially in 4-weekly periods. Post hoc analyses assessed change from baseline in daily E-RS:COPD score and rescue medication use weekly (Weeks 1–8), and association between E-RS:COPD responder status at Weeks 1–4 and later time points. Results: In the intent-to-treat population (n = 2425), reductions from baseline in E-RS:COPD scores and rescue medication use were apparent from Day 2 with all treatments. Treatment differences for UMEC/VI versus either monotherapy plateaued by Week 4–8 and were sustained at Weeks 21–24; improvements were consistently greater with UMEC/VI. For all treatments, most patients (60–85%) retained their Weeks 1–4 E-RS:COPD responder/non-responder status at Weeks 21−24. Among patients receiving UMEC/VI who were E-RS:COPD responders at Weeks 1–4, 70% were responders at Weeks 21–24. Conclusion: Patients with symptomatic COPD had greater potential for early symptom improvements with UMEC/VI versus either monotherapy. This benefit was generally maintained for 24 weeks. Early monitoring of treatment response can provide clinicians with an early indication of a patient's likely longer-term response to prescribed bronchodilator treatment and will facilitate appropriate early adjustments in care. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03034915, 2016-002513-22 (EudraCT Number). The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundMethodResultsConclusionsDaily diaries are an important modality for patient-reported outcome assessment. They typically comprise multiple questions, so understanding their underlying structure is key to appropriate analysis and interpretation. Structural evaluation of such measures poses challenges due to the high volume of repeated measurements. Potential strategies include selecting a single day, averaging item-level observations over time, or using all data while accounting for its multilevel structure.The above strategies were evaluated in a simulated dataset via exploratory and confirmatory factor modelling by comparing their impact on various estimates (i.e., inter-item correlations, factor loadings, model fit). Each strategy was additionally explored using real-world data from an observational study (the Asthma Nighttime Symptoms Diary).Both single day and item average strategies resulted in biased factor loadings. The former displayed lower overall bias (single day: 0.064; item average: 0.121) and mean square error (single day: 0.007; item average: 0.016) but greater frequency of incorrect factor number identification compared with the latter (single day: 46.4%; item average: 0%). Increased estimated inter-item correlations were apparent in the item-average method. Non-trivial between- and within-person variance highlighted the utility of a multilevel approach. However, convergence issues and Heywood cases were more common under the multilevel approach (90.2% and 100.0%, respectively).Our findings suggest that a multilevel approach can enhance our insight when evaluating the structural properties of daily diary data; however, implementation challenges still remain. Our work offers guidance on the impact of data handling decisions in diary assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]