Search

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: Atopic dermatitis (AD) has a negative impact on patients’ 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–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; 9–13 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 “itch-scratch cycle”, 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: 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.

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.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 ). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]