Psychometric properties of a single-item scale to assess sleep quality among individuals with fibromyalgia

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Sleep disturbances are a common and bothersome symptom of fibromyalgia (FM). This study reports psychometric properties of a single-item scale to assess sleep quality among individuals with FM.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Analyses were based on data from two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of pregabalin (studies 1056 and 1077). In a daily diary, patients reported the quality of their sleep on a numeric rating scale ranging from 0 ("best possible sleep") to 10 ("worst possible sleep"). Test re-test reliability of the Sleep Quality Scale was evaluated by computing intraclass correlation coefficients. Pearson correlation coefficients were computed between baseline Sleep Quality scores and baseline pain diary and Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep scores. Responsiveness to treatment was evaluated by standardized effect sizes computed as the difference between least squares mean changes in Sleep Quality scores in the pregabalin and placebo groups divided by the standard deviation of Sleep Quality scores across all patients at baseline.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Studies 1056 and 1077 included 748 and 745 patients, respectively. Most patients were female (study 1056: 94.4%; study 1077: 94.5%) and white (study 1056: 90.2%; study 1077: 91.0%). Mean ages were 48.8 years (study 1056) and 50.1 years (study 1077). Test re-test reliability coefficients of the Sleep Quality Scale were 0.91 and 0.90 in the 1056 and 1077 studies, respectively. Pearson correlation coefficients between baseline Sleep Quality scores and baseline pain diary scores were 0.64 (p < 0.001) and 0.58 (p < 0.001) in the 1056 and 1077 studies, respectively. Correlations between the Sleep Quality Scale and the MOS Sleep subscales were statistically significant (p < 0.01), except for the MOS Snoring subscale. Across both studies, standardized effect sizes were generally moderate (0.46 to 0.52) for the 300 mg group and moderate (0.59) or moderate-to-large (0.70) for the 450 mg group. In study 1056, the effect size for the 600 mg group was moderate-to-large (0.73). In study 1077, the effect size for the 600 mg group was large (0.82).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>These results provide evidence of the reproducibility, convergent validity, and responsiveness to treatment of the Sleep Quality Scale and provide a foundation for its further use and evaluation in FM patients.</p

Tofacitinib or adalimumab versus placebo: patient-reported outcomes from OPAL Broaden-a phase III study of active psoriatic arthritis in patients with an inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Objectives: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). We evaluated patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with PsA refractory to ≥1 conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD-IR) and tumour necrosis factor inhibitor-naïve in a 12-month, phase III randomised controlled trial (OPAL Broaden [NCT01877668]). Methods: Patients (N=422) received tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily, adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneously every 2 weeks or placebo advancing to tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily at month 3. Least squares mean changes from baseline and percentages of patients reporting improvements ≥minimum clinically important differences (MCID); and scores ≥normative values in: Patient Global Assessment of disease activity (PtGA), Pain, Patient Global Joint and Skin Assessment (PGJS), Short Form-36 Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue), EuroQol 5-Dimensions-3-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) and Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQoL) were determined. Nominal p values were cited without multiple comparison adjustments. Results: At month 3, PtGA, Pain, PGJS, FACIT-Fatigue, EQ-5D-3L, ASQoL and SF-36v2 Physical Component Summary (PCS), physical functioning (PF), bodily pain (BP) and vitality domain scores exceeded placebo with both tofacitinib doses (p≤0.05); SF-36v2 social functioning with 5 mg twice daily (p≤0.05). Percentages reporting improvements ≥MCID in PtGA, Pain, PGJS, FACIT-Fatigue, ASQoL and SF-36v2 PCS, PF, BP and general health scores exceeded placebo with both tofacitinib doses (p≤0.05) and were similar with adalimumab. Conclusion: csDMARD-IR patients with active PsA reported statistically and clinically meaningful improvements in PROs with tofacitinib compared with placebo at Month 3

Network Meta-Analysis of Tofacitinib, Biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs, and Apremilast for the Treatment of Psoriatic Arthritis

Background: Tofacitinib and other new treatments approved for use in psoriatic arthritis have only recently been included in psoriatic arthritis treatment guidelines, and studies evaluating the relative efficacy of available therapies are important to inform treatment decisions by healthcare professionals. Objective: To perform a network meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles of tofacitinib, biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), and apremilast in patients with psoriatic arthritis naive to tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy (TNFi-naive) or with an inadequate response (TNFi-IR). Methods: A systematic literature review used searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and The Cochrane Library on October 9, 2017. Randomized controlled trials including adult patients with psoriatic arthritis receiving treatment administered as monotherapy or with conventional synthetic DMARDs were selected. Efficacy outcomes included American College of Rheumatology 20 response, change from baseline in Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, >/=75% improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index, and change from baseline in Dactylitis Severity Score and Leeds Enthesitis Index. Treatment effects were evaluated during placebo-controlled phases, using a binomial logit model for binary outcomes and a normal identify link model for other outcomes. Discontinuations due to adverse events and serious infection events were assessed as safety outcomes. Results: The network meta-analysis included 24 published randomized controlled trials, of which 13 enrolled TNFi-naive patients only, 3 enrolled TNFi-IR patients only, and 8 enrolled both TNFi-naive and TNFi-IR patients. Placebo-controlled treatment durations ranged from 12 to 24 weeks. Indirect comparisons showed tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID to have similar efficacy compared with most bDMARDs and apremilast in improving joint symptoms (based on American College of Rheumatology 20 response), and with some bDMARDs in improving skin symptoms (based on Psoriasis Area and Severity Index) (tofacitinib 10 mg BID only in TNFi-IR) in patients with psoriatic arthritis who were TNFi-naive or TNFi-IR. Results also showed that, compared with placebo, the improvement in physical functioning (based on Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index) with tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID was similar to that observed with most bDMARDs and apremilast in TNFi-naive patients, and similar to that observed with all bDMARDs with available data in the TNFi-IR population. Improvements in Dactylitis Severity Score and Leeds Enthesitis Index scores were comparable between treatments. Tofacitinib 5 and 10 mg BID were median-ranked 8 and 15, respectively, for discontinuation due to any adverse events, and 5 and 16, respectively, for a serious infection event out of a total of 20 treatments in the network (lower numbers are more favorable). Conclusions: Tofacitinib provides an additional treatment option for patients with psoriatic arthritis, both in patients naive to TNFi and in those with TNFi-IR. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2020; 81:XXX-XXX)

Effect of tofacitinib on patient-reported outcomes in patients with active psoriatic arthritis and an inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in the phase III, randomised controlled trial: OPAL Beyond.

Objectives: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were evaluated in patients with PsA with inadequate responses to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR) in a 6-month, phase III randomised controlled trial (OPAL Beyond [NCT01882439]). Methods: Patients (N=394) received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily or placebo (advancing to tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily at month 3). Least squares mean changes from baseline and percentages of patients reporting improvements ≥minimum clinically important differences and scores ≥normative values were determined in Patient Global Assessment of disease activity (PtGA), Pain, Patient Global Joint and Skin Assessment (PGJS), Short Form-36 Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue), EuroQol 5-Dimensions-3-level (EQ-5D-3L), EQ-VAS and Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQoL). Nominal p values are without multiple comparison adjustments. Results: At month 3, PtGA, Pain, PGJS, SF-36v2 Physical Component Summary (PCS), physical functioning (PF), bodily pain (BP), vitality and social functioning (SF) domains, FACIT-Fatigue Total score, EQ-5D-3L pain/discomfort, EQ-VAS and ASQoL scores exceeded placebo with both tofacitinib doses (role physical [RP] with 10 mg twice daily only; p≤0.05). Patients reporting improvements ≥MCID (%) in PtGA, PGJS, Pain, ASQoL and SF-36v2 PCS, PF, RP, BP, SF (both tofacitinib doses) exceeded placebo (p≤0.05). Conclusion: TNFi-IR patients with PsA receiving tofacitinib reported statistically and clinically meaningful improvements in PROs versus placebo over 3 months, which were maintained to month 6. Despite lower baseline scores, these improvements were similar to the csDMARD-IR TNFi-naive OPAL Broaden trial

Overview of Classical Test Theory and Item Response Theory for the Quantitative Assessment of Items in Developing Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures

BackgroundThe US Food and Drug Administration's guidance for industry document on patient-reported outcomes (PRO) defines content validity as "the extent to which the instrument measures the concept of interest" (FDA, 2009, p. 12). According to Strauss and Smith (2009), construct validity "is now generally viewed as a unifying form of validity for psychological measurements, subsuming both content and criterion validity" (p. 7). Hence, both qualitative and quantitative information are essential in evaluating the validity of measures.MethodsWe review classical test theory and item response theory (IRT) approaches to evaluating PRO measures, including frequency of responses to each category of the items in a multi-item scale, the distribution of scale scores, floor and ceiling effects, the relationship between item response options and the total score, and the extent to which hypothesized "difficulty" (severity) order of items is represented by observed responses.ResultsIf a researcher has few qualitative data and wants to get preliminary information about the content validity of the instrument, then descriptive assessments using classical test theory should be the first step. As the sample size grows during subsequent stages of instrument development, confidence in the numerical estimates from Rasch and other IRT models (as well as those of classical test theory) would also grow.ConclusionClassical test theory and IRT can be useful in providing a quantitative assessment of items and scales during the content-validity phase of PRO-measure development. Depending on the particular type of measure and the specific circumstances, the classical test theory and/or the IRT should be considered to help maximize the content validity of PRO measures

Hardness, function, emotional well-being, satisfaction and the overall sexual experience in men using 100-mg fixed-dose or flexible-dose sildenafil citrate

The prescribing information for sildenafil citrate (VIAGRA, Pfizer, New York, NY, USA) recommends flexible dosing (50 mg initially, adjusted to 100 or 25 mg based on effectiveness and tolerability) in most men with erectile dysfunction (ED). In many men, however, 100 mg may be the most appropriate initial dose because it would reduce the need for titration and could prevent discouragement and treatment abandonment should 50 mg be insufficient. Results of two previously published double-blind, placebo-controlled sildenafil trials of similar design except for a fixed-dose vs flexible-dose regimen were analyzed. Relative to the flexible-dose, approximately one-third more men were satisfied with an initial and fixed dose of 100 mg. In addition, tolerability was similar, and improvements from baseline in outcomes on validated, ED-specific, patient-reported questionnaires were either similar (erectile function and the percentage of completely hard and fully rigid erections) or greater (emotional well-being and the overall sexual experience). The similarity in outcomes is not surprising given that almost 90% of the men in the flexible-dose trial titrated to 100 mg after 2 weeks. These data suggest prescription of an initial dose of 100 mg for men with ED, except in those for whom it is inappropriate

Living with ulcerative colitis study (LUCY) in England: A retrospective study evaluating healthcare resource utilisation and direct healthcare costs of postoperative care in ulcerative colitis

© 2020 The Authors. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article available under a Creative Commons licence. The published version can be accessed at the following link on the publisher’s website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgast-2020-000456Objective Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a lifelong, relapsing-remitting disease. Patients non-responsive to pharmacological treatment may require a colectomy. We estimated pre-colectomy and post-colectomy healthcare resource utilisation (HCRU) and costs in England. Design/Method A retrospective, longitudinal cohort study indexing adult patients with UC undergoing colectomy (2009-2015), using linked Clinical Practice Research Datalink/Hospital Episode Statistics data, was conducted. HCRU, healthcare costs and pharmacological treatments were evaluated during 12 months prior to and including colectomy (baseline) and 24 months post-colectomy (follow-up; F-U), comparing baseline/F-U, emergency/elective colectomy and subtotal/full colectomy using descriptive statistics and paired/unpaired tests. Results 249 patients from 26 165 identified were analysed including 145 (58%) elective and 184 (74%) full colectomies. Number/cost of general practitioner consultations increased post-colectomy (p<0.001), and then decreased at 13-24 months (p<0.05). From baseline to F-U, the number of outpatient visits, number/cost of hospitalisations and total direct healthcare costs decreased (all p<0.01). Postoperative HCRU was similar between elective and emergency colectomies, except for the costs of colectomy-related hospitalisations and medication, which were lower in the elective group (p<0.05). Postoperative costs were higher for subtotal versus full colectomies (p<0.001). At 1-12 month F-U, 30%, 19% and 5% of patients received aminosalicylates, steroids and immunosuppressants, respectively. Conclusion HCRU/costs increased for primary care in the first year post-colectomy but decreased for secondary care, and varied according to the colectomy type. Ongoing and potentially unnecessary pharmacological therapy was seen in up to 30% of patients. These findings can inform patients and decision-makers of potential benefits and burdens of colectomy in UC.The study was funded by Pfizer Inc.Published versio

Rapid reduction versus abrupt quitting for smokers who want to stop soon: a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial

Background: The standard way to stop smoking is to stop abruptly on a quit day with no prior reduction in consumption of cigarettes. Many smokers feel that reduction is natural and if reduction programmes were offered, many more might take up treatment. Few trials of reduction versus abrupt cessation have been completed. Most are small, do not use pharmacotherapy, and do not meet the standards necessary to obtain a marketing authorisation for a pharmacotherapy.\ud Design/Methods: We will conduct a non-inferiority andomised trial of rapid reduction versus standard abrupt cessation among smokers who want to stop smoking. In the reduction arm,participants will be advised to reduce smoking consumption by half in the first week and to 25% of baseline in the second, leading up to a quit day at which participants will stop smoking completely.This will be assisted by nicotine patches and an acute form of nicotine replacement therapy. In the abrupt arm participants will use nicotine patches only, whilst smoking as normal, for two weeks prior to a quit day, at which they will also stop smoking completely. Smokers in either arm will have standard withdrawal orientated behavioural support programme with a combination of nicotine patches and acute nicotine replacement therapy post-cessation.\ud Outcomes/Follow-up: The primary outcome of interest will be prolonged abstinence from smoking, with secondary trial outcomes of point prevalence, urges to smoke and withdrawal\ud symptoms. Follow up will take place at 4 weeks, 8 weeks and 6 months post-quit day

How do patients with inflammatory bowel disease want their biological therapy administered?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Infliximab is usually administered by two monthly intravenous (iv) infusions, therefore requiring visits to hospital. Adalimumab is administered by self subcutaneous (sc) injections every other week. Both of these anti-TNF drugs appear to be equally efficacious in the treatment of Crohn's Disease and therefore the decision regarding which drug to choose will depend to some extent on patient choice, which may be based on the mode of administration.</p> <p>The aims of this study were to compare preferences in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) patients for two currently available anti-TNF agents and the reasons for their choices.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>An anonymous questionnaire was distributed to IBD patients who had attended the Gastroenterology service (Ulster Hospital, Dundonald, Belfast, N. Ireland. UK) between January 2007 and December 2007. The patients were asked in a hypothetical situation if the following administering methods of anti-TNF drugs (intravenous or subcutaneous) were available, which drug route of administration would they choose.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>One hundred and twenty-five patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were issued questionnaires, of these 78 questionnaires were returned (62 percent response). The mean age of respondent was 44 years. Of the total number of respondents, 33 patients (42 percent) preferred infliximab and 19 patients (24 percent) preferred adalimumab (p = 0.07). Twenty-six patients (33 percent) did not indicate a preference for either biological therapy and were not included in the final analysis. The commonest reason cited for those who chose infliximab (iv) was: <it>"I do not like the idea of self-injecting," </it>(67 percent). For those patients who preferred adalimumab (sc) the commonest reason cited was: <it>"I prefer the convenience of injecting at home," </it>(79 percent). Of those patients who had previously been treated with an anti-TNF therapy (n = 10, all infliximab) six patients stated that they would prefer infliximab if given the choice in the future (p = 0.75).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>There was a trend towards patient preference for infliximab (iv) treatment as opposed to adalimumab (sc) in patients with IBD. This difference may be due to the frequency of administration, mode of administration or differing 'times in the market-place', as infliximab had been approved for a longer period of time in Crohn's disease. Further studies are required in IBD patients to investigate whether patient choice will affect compliance, patient satisfaction and efficacy of treatment with anti-TNF therapies.</p