Search

BackgroundChronic cough and phlegm are frequently reported chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) symptoms. Prior research classified chronic mucus hypersecretion (CMH) based on the presence of these symptoms for ≥3 months, called chronic bronchitis (CB) if respiratory infection symptoms were present for 1-2 years (Medical Research Council [MRC] definition). We explored whether the COPD Assessment Test (CAT), a simple measure developed for routine clinical use, captures CMH populations and outcomes similarly to MRC and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) definitions.MethodsWe identified CMH in the SPIROMICS COPD cohort using (a) MRC definitions, (b) SGRQ questions for cough and phlegm (both as most/several days a week), and (c) CAT cough and phlegm questions. We determined optimal cut-points for CAT items and described exacerbation frequencies for different CMH definitions. Moderate exacerbations required a new prescription for antibiotics/oral corticosteroids or emergency department visit; severe exacerbations required hospitalization. Results were stratified by smoking status.ResultsIn a population of 1431 participants (57% male; mean FEV1% predicted 61%), 47% and 49% of evaluable participants had SGRQ- or CAT-defined CMH, respectively. A cut-point of ≥2 for cough and phlegm items defined CMH in CAT. Among SGRQ-CMH+ participants, 80% were also defined as CMH+ by the CAT. CMH+ participants were more likely to be current smokers. A higher exacerbation frequency was observed for presence of CMH+ versus CMH- in the year prior to baseline for all CMH definitions; this trend continued across 3 years of follow-up, regardless of smoking status.ConclusionItems from the CAT identified SGRQ-defined CMH, a frequent COPD trait that correlated with exacerbation frequency. The CAT is a short, simple questionnaire and a potentially valuable tool for telemedicine or real-world trials. CAT-based CMH is a novel approach for identifying clinically important characteristics in COPD that can be ascertained in these settings.

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]