Explore the vast range of titles available.

In the KEYNOTE-826 study, the addition of the anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab improved overall survival and progression-free survival (primary endpoints) versus placebo plus chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab, with manageable toxicity, in patients with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer. In this Article, we report patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from KEYNOTE-826. KEYNOTE-826 is a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial in 151 cancer treatment centres in 19 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older with persistent, recurrent, or metastatic cervical cancer not previously treated with systemic chemotherapy (previous radiosensitising chemotherapy was allowed) and not amenable to curative treatment and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by means of an interactive voice response system in a double-blind manner to receive either pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks intravenously for up to 35 cycles plus chemotherapy (paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 plus cisplatin 50 mg/m2 or carboplatin area under the curve 5 mg/mL per min, intravenously) with or without bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks intravenously. Randomisation (block size of 4) was stratified by metastatic disease at diagnosis, planned bevacizumab use, and PD-L1 combined positive score. Patients, investigators, and other study personnel involved in study treatment administration or clinical evaluation of patients were unaware of treatment group assignments. PRO instruments were the EORTC Quality-of-Life-Core 30 (QLQ-C30), the EORTC cervical cancer module (QLQ-CX24), and the EuroQol-5 dimension-5 level (EQ-5D-5L) visual analogue scale, each collected before treatment at cycles 1–14 and every other cycle thereafter. Primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival per RECIST version 1.1 by investigator review. Change from baseline in QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS)–quality of life (QoL) was a prespecified secondary endpoint and was assessed in the PRO full analysis population (all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment and completed at least one post-baseline PRO assessment). Other PRO analyses were protocol-specified exploratory endpoints. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03635567, and is ongoing. Between Nov 20, 2018, and Jan 31, 2020, of 883 patients screened, 617 were randomly assigned (pembrolizumab group, n=308; placebo group, n=309). 587 (95%) of 617 patients received at least one dose of study treatment and completed at least one post-baseline PRO assessment and were therefore included in the PRO analyses (pembrolizumab group, n=290; placebo group, n=297). Median follow-up was 22·0 months (IQR 19·1–24·4). At week 30, QLQ-C30 completion was 199 (69%) of 290 patients in the pembrolizumab group and 168 (57%) of 297 patients in the placebo group; compliance was 199 (94%) of 211 and 168 (90%) of 186, respectively. The least squares mean change in QLQ-C30 GHS–QoL score from baseline to week 30 was −0·3 points (95% CI −3·1 to 2·6) in the pembrolizumab group and −1·3 points (−4·2 to 1·7) in the placebo group, with a between-group difference in least squares mean change of 1·0 point (95% CI −2·7 to 4·7). Median time to true deterioration in GHS–QoL was not reached (NR; 95% CI 13·4 months–NR) in the pembrolizumab group and 12·9 months (6·6–NR) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·84 [95% CI 0·65–1·09]). 122 (42%) of 290 patients in the pembrolizumab group versus 85 (29%) of 297 in the placebo group had improved GHS–QoL at any time during the study (p=0·0003). Addition of pembrolizumab to chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab did not negatively affect health-related quality of life. Along with the efficacy and safety results already reported from KEYNOTE-826, these data support the benefit of pembrolizumab and the value of immunotherapy in patients with recurrent, persistent, or metastatic cervical cancer. Merck Sharp & Dohme.

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.

Aims: The Cough Severity Diary (CSD) was developed in accordance with the FDA guidance for patient-reported outcome measures and is focused on capturing the patient’s perception of cough in terms of frequency, intensity, and disruption due to their cough. The measure includes a series of seven items asking patients to rate the frequency (three items), intensity (two items), and disruptiveness (two items) of their cough. The instrument was designed to be completed daily before bedtime, has a recall period of ‘today,’ and responses to items are entered on an 11-point numeric rating scale ranging from 0 to 10 with anchors on each end. The objective of this analysis was to confirm the domain structure of the CSD and assess its reliability, validity, and responsiveness in adult patients with refractory or unexplained chronic cough (RCC/UCC). Criteria for defining meaningful changes in mean weekly CSD total and domain scores in the context of a clinical trial were also developed. Methods: Pooled data from a phase II randomized controlled trial of an investigational treatment for RCC/UCC were analyzed. Participants were non-smokers, had RCC/UCC for ⩾1 year, and a baseline cough severity visual analogue scale (VAS) ⩾40 mm. CSD scores (baseline, week 4), were analyzed; the Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ), cough severity VAS, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), and objective cough frequency counts were used for validation. CSD domain structure (Total, Frequency, Intensity, Disruption) was assessed for scoring. Results: A total of 253 participants were included (mean age 60.2; 76% female). Global fit of the three-factor CSD was acceptable. For the CSD total score, internal consistency (α = 0.89) and test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.68) were high. CSD total scores were correlated with the LCQ total (r = –0.62) and cough severity VAS (r = 0.84). Participants with a PGIC score of 1 or 2 (most improved groups) had the greatest mean score improvement on the CSD Total (Day 0 to Day 28), supporting responsiveness (similar findings for subscales). A change threshold of ⩾1.3-point reduction on the total and subscale scores is appropriate to define clinically meaningful improvement. Conclusion: The CSD is a reliable, valid, and responsive measure of cough symptom severity in patients with refractory or unexplained chronic cough and fit-for-purpose for assessing changes in cough severity in clinical trials. The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Background: Chronic cough, a cough lasting >8 weeks, includes refractory chronic cough (RCC) and unexplained chronic cough (UCC). Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are needed to better understand chronic cough impacts that matter most to patients. The 19-item Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ), an existing PRO measure of chronic cough, assesses impacts of cough across physical, psychological, and social domains. However, the content validity of the LCQ evaluating these concepts in patients with RCC/UCC had not been established. Objectives: To evaluate the content validity of the LCQ in patients with RCC/UCC. Design: A cross-sectional, qualitative interview study. Methods: First, previously completed qualitative interview results in adults with RCC/UCC (N = 30) were evaluated and mapped to LCQ concepts. Next, a clinical cough expert reviewed each LCQ item and assessed the salience of its concepts for patients with RCC/UCC. Finally, semistructured interviews—including both concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing—were conducted in adults with RCC/UCC (N = 20) to elicit a comprehensive set of participant experiences and to assess the appropriateness of using the LCQ in this population. Results: Concepts reported in the past and present qualitative interviews were included across all LCQ items, and most impacts reported to be the “most bothersome” were assessed in the LCQ. In the current study, all participants indicated that reduced cough frequency would be an important treatment target. During cognitive debriefing, each LCQ item was endorsed by ⩾70% of participants. Additionally, participants were generally able to understand, recall, and select a response for each LCQ item. All participants and the clinical expert indicated that the LCQ was appropriate and assessed the impacts most relevant to patients with RCC/UCC. Conclusion: Our findings support the content validity of the LCQ and demonstrate that this measure is fit-for-purpose and includes important cough impacts in adults with RCC/UCC.

Introduction In phase 3 trials (COUGH-1/COUGH-2), gefapixant 45 mg twice daily significantly reduced 24-h cough frequency vs placebo in refractory or unexplained chronic cough (RCC or UCC). Methods Here, the efficacy of gefapixant 45 mg vs placebo was evaluated across COUGH-1/COUGH-2 in predefined subgroups based on sex, region, age, cough duration, cough severity, cough frequency, and diagnosis (RCC, UCC). Awake cough frequency reductions at Week 12 and LCQ response rates (i.e., ≥ 1.3-point improvement) at Week 24 were assessed. Results Among 1360 participants analyzed, gefapixant 45 mg resulted in consistent awake cough frequency reductions overall and across predefined subgroups at Week 12. Gefapixant also resulted in improved LCQ scores across subgroups at Week 24; ≥ 70% of participants in each subgroup treated with gefapixant 45 mg had an LCQ response. Conclusion These data suggest gefapixant 45 mg provides consistent objective and subjective efficacy across subgroups of individuals with RCC or UCC.

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.

Purpose This analysis assesses clinical characteristics of patients with refractory chronic cough (RCC) or unexplained chronic cough (UCC) enrolled in a phase 2 study to better understand this patient population. Methods Patients with RCC/UCC lasting for ≥ 1 year and cough severity visual analog scale (VAS) score of > 40 mm at screening were eligible. Demographics, clinical characteristics, and medical history were collected at baseline. Cough-related measures included cough severity VAS, Cough Severity Diary (CSD), Leicester Cough Questionnaire (LCQ), and a structured cough-trigger questionnaire. Medication history included all medications 30 days before screening and chronic cough treatments within 1 year before screening. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Results Patients ( N  = 253; female, 76%; mean age, 60 years) had severe (mean cough severity VAS, 57.5 mm) and long-lasting (median duration, 11 years) cough. The most burdensome self-reported aspects included psychological and social factors (LCQ) and cough frequency and intensity (CSD). Patient-reported triggers were consistent with cough hypersensitivity (e.g., 95% to 96% reported irritation or tickle in throat). Common reported comorbidities included gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD; 56%), allergic rhinitis (47%), and asthma (30%); 12% of patients had been diagnosed with all 3 conditions. The most common prior medications included inhaled or oral steroids (21%), antihistamines (15%), and antacids (15%). Conclusion Patients with RCC/UCC had severe, long-lasting, and burdensome cough with clinical features of cough hypersensitivity. Many patients had been diagnosed with GERD, allergic rhinitis, and asthma but had a persistent cough despite treatment of these conditions. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02612610; registered November 20, 2015

Purpose To evaluate the influence of recall periods on the assessment of physical function, we compared, in cancer and general population samples, the standard administration of PROMIS Physical Function items without a recall period to administrations with 24-hour and 7-day recall periods. Methods We administered 31 items from the PROMIS Physical Function v2.0 item bank to 2400 respondents ( n  = 1001 with cancer; n  = 1399 from the general population). Respondents were randomly assigned to one of three recall conditions (no recall, 24-hours, or 7-days) and one of two “reminder” conditions (with recall periods presented only at the start of the survey or with every item). We assessed items for potential differential item functioning (DIF) by recall time period. We then tested recall and reminder effects with analysis of variance controlling for demographics, English fluency, and co-morbidities. Results Based on conservative pre-set criteria, no items were flagged for recall time period-related DIF. Using analysis of variance, each condition was compared to the standard PROMIS administration for Physical Function (no recall period). There was no evidence of significant differences among groups in the cancer sample. In the general population sample, only the 24-hour recall condition with reminders was significantly different from the “no recall” PROMIS standard. At the item level, for both samples, the number of items with non-trivial effect size differences across conditions was minimal. Conclusions Compared to no recall, the use of a recall period has little to no effect upon PROMIS physical function responses or scores. We recommend that PROMIS Physical Function be administered with the standard PROMIS “no recall” period.

Gefapixant is an oral P2X receptor antagonist that has previously shown efficacy and safety in refractory chronic cough and unexplained chronic cough. We therefore aim to confirm the efficacy and safety of gefapixant in participants with refractory chronic cough and unexplained chronic cough. COUGH-1 and COUGH-2 were both double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials. COUGH-1 was done in 156 sites in 17 countries and COUGH-2 in 175 sites in 20 countries. We enrolled participants who were 18 years or older with a diagnosis of refractory chronic cough or unexplained chronic cough of 1 year duration or more. Participants were also required to have a cough severity visual analogue scale score of 40 mm or more at screening and baseline. Eligible participants were randomly allocated (1:1:1), using a computer-generated allocation schedule, to one of three treatment groups: placebo, gefapixant 15 mg twice per day, or gefapixant 45 mg twice per day. All study treatments were given orally. Participants were treated over a 12-week main study period in COUGH-1 and a 24-week main study period in COUGH-2; followed by extension periods for a total of up to 52 weeks of treatment in both trials. The primary outcome was placebo-adjusted mean change in 24-h cough frequency at 12 weeks in COUGH-1 and 24 weeks in COUGH-2. Both studies were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03449134 (COUGH-1) and NCT03449147 (COUGH-2). From March 14, 2018, (first participant screened) to July 26, 2019, (last participant screened) 732 patients were recruited in COUGH-1 and 1317 in COUGH-2. COUGH-1 randomly assigned and treated 730 participants (243 [33×3%] with placebo, 244 [33×4%] with gefapixant 15 mg twice per day, and 243 [33×3%] with gefapixant 45 mg twice per day); COUGH-2 randomly assigned and treated 1314 participants (435 [33×1%] with placebo, 440 [33×5%] with gefapixant 15 mg twice per day, and 439 [33×4%] with gefapixant 45 mg twice per day). Participants were mostly female (542 [74×2%] of 730 in COUGH-1 and 984 [74×9%] of 1314 in COUGH-2). The mean age was 59×0 years (SD 12×6) in COUGH-1 and 58×1 years (12×1) in COUGH-2, and the mean cough duration was 11·6 years (SD 9·5) in COUGH-1 and 11·2 years (9·8) in COUGH-2. Gefapixant 45 mg twice per day showed significant reductions in 24-h cough frequency compared with placebo at week 12 in COUGH-1 (18·5% [95% CI 32·9-0·9]; p=0·041) and at week 24 in COUGH-2 (14·6% [26·1-1·4]; p=0·031). Gefapixant 15 mg twice per day did not show a significant reduction in cough frequency versus placebo in both studies. The most common adverse events were related to taste disturbance: ageusia (36 [4·9%] of 730 in COUGH-1 and 86 [6·5%] of 1314 in COUGH-2), dysgeusia (118 [16·2%] in COUGH-1 and 277 [21·1%] in COUGH-2), hypergeusia (3 [0·4%] in COUGH-1 and 6 [0×5%] in COUGH-2), hypogeusia (19 [2·6%] in COUGH-1 and 80 [6·1%] in COUGH-2), and taste disorder (28 [3·8%] in COUGH-1 and 46 [3·5%] in COUGH-2). Gefapixant 45 mg twice per day is the first treatment to show efficacy with an acceptable safety profile in phase 3 clinical trials for refractory chronic cough or unexplained chronic cough. Merck Sharp & Dohme.

Gefapixant is an oral P2X3 receptor antagonist that has previously shown efficacy and safety in refractory chronic cough and unexplained chronic cough. We therefore aim to confirm the efficacy and safety of gefapixant in participants with refractory chronic cough and unexplained chronic cough. COUGH-1 and COUGH-2 were both double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials. COUGH-1 was done in 156 sites in 17 countries and COUGH-2 in 175 sites in 20 countries. We enrolled participants who were 18 years or older with a diagnosis of refractory chronic cough or unexplained chronic cough of 1 year duration or more. Participants were also required to have a cough severity visual analogue scale score of 40 mm or more at screening and baseline. Eligible participants were randomly allocated (1:1:1), using a computer-generated allocation schedule, to one of three treatment groups: placebo, gefapixant 15 mg twice per day, or gefapixant 45 mg twice per day. All study treatments were given orally. Participants were treated over a 12-week main study period in COUGH-1 and a 24-week main study period in COUGH-2; followed by extension periods for a total of up to 52 weeks of treatment in both trials. The primary outcome was placebo-adjusted mean change in 24-h cough frequency at 12 weeks in COUGH-1 and 24 weeks in COUGH-2. Both studies were registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03449134 (COUGH-1) and NCT03449147 (COUGH-2). From March 14, 2018, (first participant screened) to July 26, 2019, (last participant screened) 732 patients were recruited in COUGH-1 and 1317 in COUGH-2. COUGH-1 randomly assigned and treated 730 participants (243 [33×3%] with placebo, 244 [33×4%] with gefapixant 15 mg twice per day, and 243 [33×3%] with gefapixant 45 mg twice per day); COUGH-2 randomly assigned and treated 1314 participants (435 [33×1%] with placebo, 440 [33×5%] with gefapixant 15 mg twice per day, and 439 [33×4%] with gefapixant 45 mg twice per day). Participants were mostly female (542 [74×2%] of 730 in COUGH-1 and 984 [74×9%] of 1314 in COUGH-2). The mean age was 59×0 years (SD 12×6) in COUGH-1 and 58×1 years (12×1) in COUGH-2, and the mean cough duration was 11·6 years (SD 9·5) in COUGH-1 and 11·2 years (9·8) in COUGH-2. Gefapixant 45 mg twice per day showed significant reductions in 24-h cough frequency compared with placebo at week 12 in COUGH-1 (18·5% [95% CI 32·9–0·9]; p=0·041) and at week 24 in COUGH-2 (14·6% [26·1–1·4]; p=0·031). Gefapixant 15 mg twice per day did not show a significant reduction in cough frequency versus placebo in both studies. The most common adverse events were related to taste disturbance: ageusia (36 [4·9%] of 730 in COUGH-1 and 86 [6·5%] of 1314 in COUGH-2), dysgeusia (118 [16·2%] in COUGH-1 and 277 [21·1%] in COUGH-2), hypergeusia (3 [0·4%] in COUGH-1 and 6 [0×5%] in COUGH-2), hypogeusia (19 [2·6%] in COUGH-1 and 80 [6·1%] in COUGH-2), and taste disorder (28 [3·8%] in COUGH-1 and 46 [3·5%] in COUGH-2). Gefapixant 45 mg twice per day is the first treatment to show efficacy with an acceptable safety profile in phase 3 clinical trials for refractory chronic cough or unexplained chronic cough. Merck Sharp & Dohme.