Explore the vast range of titles available.

Introduction: Patients with chronic cough experience considerable burden. The cough severity visual analog scale (VAS) records patients’ assessment of cough severity on a 100-mm linear scale ranging from “no cough” (0 mm) to “worst cough” (100 mm). Although cough severity scales are widely used in clinical practice and research, their use in patients with refractory or unexplained chronic cough has not been formally validated. Methods: This analysis includes data from a phase 2b randomized controlled trial of the P2X3-receptor antagonist gefapixant for treatment of refractory or unexplained chronic cough (NCT02612610). Cough severity VAS scores were assessed at baseline and Weeks 4, 8, and 12. The cough severity VAS was validated using several outcomes, including the Cough Severity Diary (CSD), Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ), patient global impression of change (PGIC) scale, and objective cough frequency. Validation metrics included test–retest reliability, convergent and known-groups validity, responsiveness, and score interpretation (i.e., clinically meaningful change threshold). Results: The analysis included 253 patients (median age, 61.0 years; females, 76%). Test–retest reliability of the cough severity VAS was moderate (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.51). The cough severity VAS had acceptable convergent validity with other related measures (Pearson r of 0.53 and -0.41 for CSD and LCQ total scores, respectively; p < 0.0001 for each). Known-groups validity was supported by significant differences in mean cough severity VAS scores across severity groups defined using CSD, LCQ, and cough frequency tertiles. A large effect size was observed in patients with the greatest improvements in PGIC (Cohen d = -1.8). A ⩾ 30-mm reduction in the cough severity VAS was estimated as a clinically meaningful change threshold for clinical trials in chronic cough. Conclusions: The cough severity VAS is a valid and responsive measure. A cough severity VAS reduction of ⩾ 30 mm can discriminate clinically meaningful changes in chronic cough severity in clinical studies.

Introduction: The Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ), a cough-specific quality-of-life measure, evaluates the impact of cough across physical, psychological, and social domains in patients with chronic cough (CC). This study assessed the psychometric properties of the LCQ. Methods: Data from a phase IIb, randomized controlled trial of the P2X3-receptor antagonist gefapixant were analyzed (NCT02612610). Subjective [Cough Severity Diary, cough severity visual analogue scale, and patient global impression of change (PGIC)] and objective (awake and 24-h cough frequency) data were used to validate the LCQ for use in patients with refractory or unexplained CC (RCC and UCC, respectively). Psychometric analyses included confirmatory factor analyses, internal consistency and test–retest reliability, validity, responsiveness, and estimated within-patient thresholds for clinically meaningful change. Results: Model-fit values for the proposed three-factor LCQ domains and most individual items were acceptable. Analyses suggest that a mean improvement ranging from 1.3 to 2.3 points for the LCQ total and ⩾0.8, ⩾0.9, and ⩾0.8 points for physical, psychological, and social domain scores, respectively, had the best sensitivity and/or specificity for predicting patient ratings of improvement on the PGIC. Conclusions: The LCQ is a valid and reliable measure to evaluate cough-specific quality of life and is a fit-for-purpose measure for use in patients with RCC or UCC. Although a single threshold for defining clinically meaningful change depends on the context of use, the results can help guide both treatment decisions and drug development. Therefore, clinicians may consider a ⩾1.3-point increase in the LCQ total score as clinically meaningful.

Background This study examined the time to clinically meaningful response in patients with active psoriatic arthritis treated with tofacitinib, adalimumab, or placebo switching to tofacitinib. Methods Data were from two phase 3 studies, OPAL Broaden (12 months) and OPAL Beyond (6 months). Patients received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily (BID), adalimumab 40 mg once every 2 weeks (OPAL Broaden only), or placebo switching to tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg BID at month 3. Baseline to initial response time was according to pre-defined clinically meaningful criteria on Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI; ≥ 0.35-point improvement), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F; ≥ 4-point improvement), Psoriatic Arthritis Disease Activity Score (PASDAS; post-baseline score ≤ 3.2 and > 1.6-point improvement from baseline), and minimal disease activity (MDA; meeting at least 5 of 7 criteria) composite. Results In OPAL Broaden, median time to initial HAQ-DI score response was 29, 53, and 30 days in patients treated with tofacitinib 5 mg BID, tofacitinib 10 mg BID, or adalimumab, compared with 162 and 112 days in patients treated with placebo switching to tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg BID at month 3, respectively. Across studies, median time to initial FACIT-F total score response was shorter in patients receiving tofacitinib 5 mg BID (31 days) vs other groups (84–92 days). Median time to initial response was approximately 11 (MDA)/6–9 months (PASDAS) in tofacitinib/adalimumab groups in OPAL Broaden. Conclusion This analysis demonstrates tofacitinib’s efficacy on most patient-reported and clinical endpoints over time and shows a shorter time to initial, clinically meaningful response in patients receiving tofacitinib vs patients switching from placebo to tofacitinib. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT01877668. Registered June 12, 2013. ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT01882439. Registered June 18, 2013.

Introduction and hypothesis Data from a large US population-based, cross-sectional, epidemiological study (the EpiNP Study) were used to assess the symptoms and bother experienced by women with nocturnal polyuria (NP). Methods Consenting participants recruited from an online panel completed the baseline EpiNP survey online (Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Tool and urological comorbidities). All reporting ≥2 voids/night and a random sample of 100 respondents, each reporting 0 or 1 void/night were asked to complete a 3-day web-based bladder diary recording time, volume, and urgency rating of each void. NP was calculated by the proportion of urine production that occurred during nocturnal hours using a Nocturnal Polyuria Index (NPI33) threshold of >0.33 or nocturnal urine production of >90 ml/h (NUP90). The frequency of participants reporting LUTS and bother was determined by age and NP: idiopathic NP, NP associated with overactive bladder (NPOAB), NP associated with comorbidities (NPCom), and no NP (did not meet NP criteria). Results A total of 5,290 women completed the baseline survey. Mean age (range) was 54.9 (30–95) years; 1,841 (34.8%) reported ≥2 nocturnal voids. The prevalence of LUTS increased across the lifespan; however, bother associated with each LUTS decreased with increasing age. The percentage of women rating bother by nocturia episodes ≥2 “> somewhat” ranged from 40.3% to 68.3%, with bother ratings highest in the NPOAB and No NP groups. Conclusions NP is prevalent in women with considerable bother and is often associated with other urinary symptoms. Multifactorial causes and potential treatments of NP should be considered, particularly at a later age.

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 Symptom constructs included in the Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (E-RS®: COPD) tool may be relevant to patients with asthma. The purpose of this study was to evaluate content validity and psychometric performance of the E-RS: COPD in moderate/severe asthma patients. Methods Content validity of the E-RS: COPD was evaluated in patients with moderate/severe asthma using concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews. Secondary analyses using data from two clinical trials in patients with moderate/severe asthma evaluated the factor structure of the E-RS: COPD plus two supplementary items (wheeze; shortness of breath with strenuous physical activity) and assessed psychometric properties of the tool, which will be referred to as E-RS®: Asthma when used in asthma populations. Results Qualitative interviews ( N  = 25) achieved concept saturation for asthma respiratory symptoms. Concepts in the E-RS: COPD were relevant to patients and instructions were understood. Most patients (19/25; 76%) reported experiencing all concepts in the E-RS: COPD; no patients indicated missing symptoms. Secondary analyses of clinical trial data supported the original factor structure (RS-Total and three symptom-specific subscales). The two supplemental items did not fit with this factor structure and were not retained. RS-Total and subscale score reliability was high (internal consistency [α] > 0.70). Validity was demonstrated through significant ( P  < 0.0001) relationships with the St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and Asthma Symptom Severity scale. E-RS: Asthma was responsive to change when evaluated using SGRQ, Patient Global Impression of Change and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire as anchors ( P  < 0.0001). Clinically meaningful change thresholds were also identified (RS-Total: − 2.0 units). Conclusions The E-RS: Asthma is reliable and responsive for evaluating respiratory symptoms in patients with moderate/severe asthma.

Objective Asthma is often inadequately controlled, which can result in exacerbations that lead to unplanned healthcare visits. Mobile application (app) use could help manage asthma exacerbations. We implemented the Amaze™ asthma disease management platform in clinical practice and assessed user satisfaction, usage, and usability. Methods Adults with asthma and healthcare professionals (HCPs) were enrolled from a community allergy practice (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04901260) and a large academic hospital (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04868500). Primary and exploratory outcomes included assessment of platform design, patient app usage, patient-reported daily asthma status, emergency room/urgent care visits, and ease of implementation by HCPs. The system usability scale and a post-clinic visit survey were also administered. HCPs/staff monitored the Amaze dashboard to assess patient needs and completed a post-study survey. Results Overall, 159 patients and five HCPs participated in the study. Patients’ mean (SD) age was 38.7 (16.4) years; most were female (78%) and White (78%). Mean patient app usage began at 3.6 days/week but declined to 1.0 day/week by the end of the study. Throughout the study, most daily entries (>69%) reported patient asthma status as “good.” Most patients were satisfied/very satisfied with the app (66%) and reported it helped them during discussions with their HCP (44%). Most patients rated the usability of Amaze as “excellent” (49%) or “good” (30%). Most HCPs (71%) reported that Amaze was “very easy” to implement. Conclusions Most patients and HCPs were satisfied with Amaze. The Amaze platform may help patients and HCPs monitor asthma status, which could improve asthma control.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is often unrecognized and untreated. To develop a method for identifying undiagnosed COPD requiring treatment with currently available therapies (FEV <60% predicted and/or exacerbation risk). We conducted a multisite, cross-sectional, case-control study in U.S. pulmonary and primary care clinics that recruited subjects from primary care settings. Cases were patients with COPD and at least one exacerbation in the past year or FEV less than 60% of predicted without exacerbation in the past year. Control subjects were persons with no COPD or with mild COPD (FEV ≥60% predicted, no exacerbation in the past year). In random forests analyses, we identified the smallest set of questions plus peak expiratory flow (PEF) with optimal sensitivity (SN) and specificity (SP). PEF and spirometry were recorded in 186 cases and 160 control subjects. The mean (SD) age of the sample population was 62.7 (10.1) years; 55% were female; 86% were white; and 16% had never smoked. The mean FEV percent predicted for cases was 42.5% (14.2%); for control subjects, it was 82.5% (15.7%). A five-item questionnaire, CAPTURE (COPD Assessment in Primary Care to Identify Undiagnosed Respiratory Disease and Exacerbation Risk), was used to assess exposure, breathing problems, tiring easily, and acute respiratory illnesses. CAPTURE exhibited an SN of 95.7% and an SP of 44.4% for differentiating cases from all control subjects, and an SN of 95.7% and an SP of 67.8% for differentiating cases from no-COPD control subjects. The PEF (males, <350 L/min; females, <250 L/min) SN and SP were 88.0% and 77.5%, respectively, for differentiating cases from all control subjects, and they were 88.0% and 90.8%, respectively, for distinguishing cases from no-COPD control subjects. The CAPTURE plus PEF exhibited improved SN and SP for all cases versus all control subjects (89.7% and 78.1%, respectively) and for all cases versus no-COPD control subjects (89.7% and 93.1%, respectively). CAPTURE with PEF can identify patients with COPD who would benefit from currently available therapy and require further diagnostic evaluation. Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01880177).

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.

Purpose Objective cough frequency is used to assess efficacy of chronic cough (CC) treatments. The objective of this study was to explore the relationship between objective cough frequency and cough-specific patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and estimate a clinically meaningful change threshold (MCT) for objective cough frequency. Methods Data collected in a phase 2b study in participants with refractory or unexplained CC were used to investigate the relationship between 24-h cough frequency (measured using an ambulatory cough monitor) and cough-specific PROs (i.e., cough severity visual analog scale, cough severity diary, Leicester Cough Questionnaire). Convergent validity was assessed using Spearman ρ . An MCT for 24-h cough frequency was estimated using the patient global impression of change (PGIC) scale as an anchor. Results Correlations between 24-h cough frequency and cough-specific PROs at baseline, Week 4, and Week 12 were significant ( P  < 0.0001) but low to moderate in strength ( ρ  = 0.30–0.58). Participants categorized as very much improved/much improved (i.e., PGIC of 1 or 2) or minimally improved (i.e., PGIC of 3) had mean 24-h cough frequency reductions of 55% and 30%, respectively. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis suggested that a 24-h cough frequency reduction of 38% optimizes sensitivity and specificity for predicting a PGIC score of 1–3. Conclusion Objective 24-h cough frequency is significantly associated with cough-specific PROs, but cough frequency and PROs most likely capture distinct aspects of CC. A ≥ 30% reduction in 24-h cough frequency is a reasonable MCT to define treatment response in CC clinical trials.