Reliability, Validity, and Responsiveness of InFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO (c)) Scores in Influenza-Positive Patients

OBJECTIVES: To assess the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of InFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO©) scores for quantifying the presence and severity of influenza symptoms. METHODS: An observational prospective cohort study of adults (≥18 years) with influenza-like illness in the United States, the United Kingdom, Mexico, and South America was conducted. Participants completed the 37-item draft FLU-PRO daily for up to 14 days. Item-level and factor analyses were used to remove items and determine factor structure. Reliability of the final tool was estimated using Cronbach α and intraclass correlation coefficients (2-day reliability). Convergent and known-groups validity and responsiveness were assessed using global assessments of influenza severity and return to usual health. RESULTS: Of the 536 patients enrolled, 221 influenza-positive subjects comprised the analytical sample. The mean age of the patients was 40.7 years, 60.2% were women, and 59.7% were white. The final 32-item measure has six factors/domains (nose, throat, eyes, chest/respiratory, gastrointestinal, and body/systemic), with a higher order factor representing symptom severity overall (comparative fit index = 0.92; root mean square error of approximation = 0.06). Cronbach α was high (total = 0.92; domain range = 0.71–0.87); test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, day 1–day 2) was 0.83 for total scores and 0.57 to 0.79 for domains. Day 1 FLU-PRO domain and total scores were moderately to highly correlated (≥0.30) with Patient Global Rating of Flu Severity (except nose and throat). Consistent with known-groups validity, scores differentiated severity groups on the basis of global rating (total: F = 57.2, P < 0.001; domains: F = 8.9–67.5, P < 0.001). Subjects reporting return to usual health showed significantly greater (P < 0.05) FLU-PRO score improvement by day 7 than did those who did not, suggesting score responsiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that FLU-PRO scores are reliable, valid, and responsive to change in influenza-positive adults

Hyperimmune immunoglobulin for hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (ITAC): a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3, randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Passive immunotherapy using hyperimmune intravenous immunoglobulin (hIVIG) to SARS-CoV-2, derived from recovered donors, is a potential rapidly available, specific therapy for an outbreak infection such as SARS-CoV-2. Findings from randomised clinical trials of hIVIG for the treatment of COVID-19 are limited. METHODS: In this international randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who had been symptomatic for up to 12 days and did not have acute end-organ failure were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either hIVIG or an equivalent volume of saline as placebo, in addition to remdesivir, when not contraindicated, and other standard clinical care. Randomisation was stratified by site pharmacy; schedules were prepared using a mass-weighted urn design. Infusions were prepared and masked by trial pharmacists; all other investigators, research staff, and trial participants were masked to group allocation. Follow-up was for 28 days. The primary outcome was measured at day 7 by a seven-category ordinal endpoint that considered pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications and ranged from no limiting symptoms to death. Deaths and adverse events, including organ failure and serious infections, were used to define composite safety outcomes at days 7 and 28. Prespecified subgroup analyses were carried out for efficacy and safety outcomes by duration of symptoms, the presence of anti-spike neutralising antibodies, and other baseline factors. Analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population, which included all randomly assigned participants who met eligibility criteria and received all or part of the assigned study product infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04546581. FINDINGS: From Oct 8, 2020, to Feb 10, 2021, 593 participants (n=301 hIVIG, n=292 placebo) were enrolled at 63 sites in 11 countries; 579 patients were included in the mITT analysis. Compared with placebo, the hIVIG group did not have significantly greater odds of a more favourable outcome at day 7; the adjusted OR was 1·06 (95% CI 0·77–1·45; p=0·72). Infusions were well tolerated, although infusion reactions were more common in the hIVIG group (18·6% vs 9·5% for placebo; p=0·002). The percentage with the composite safety outcome at day 7 was similar for the hIVIG (24%) and placebo groups (25%; OR 0·98, 95% CI 0·66–1·46; p=0·91). The ORs for the day 7 ordinal outcome did not vary for subgroups considered, but there was evidence of heterogeneity of the treatment effect for the day 7 composite safety outcome: risk was greater for hIVIG compared with placebo for patients who were antibody positive (OR 2·21, 95% CI 1·14–4·29); for patients who were antibody negative, the OR was 0·51 (0·29–0·90; pinteraction=0·001). INTERPRETATION: When administered with standard of care including remdesivir, SARS-CoV-2 hIVIG did not demonstrate efficacy among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 without end-organ failure. The safety of hIVIG might vary by the presence of endogenous neutralising antibodies at entry. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health

Reliability, Validity, and Responsiveness of InFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO©) Scores in Influenza-Positive Patients

Objectives: To assess the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of InFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO©) scores for quantifying the presence and severity of influenza symptoms. Methods: An observational prospective cohort study of adults (≥18 years) with influenza-like illness in the United States, the United Kingdom, Mexico, and South America was conducted. Participants completed the 37-item draft FLU-PRO daily for up to 14 days. Item-level and factor analyses were used to remove items and determine factor structure. Reliability of the final tool was estimated using Cronbach α and intraclass correlation coefficients (2-day reliability). Convergent and known-groups validity and responsiveness were assessed using global assessments of influenza severity and return to usual health. Results: Of the 536 patients enrolled, 221 influenza-positive subjects comprised the analytical sample. The mean age of the patients was 40.7 years, 60.2% were women, and 59.7% were white. The final 32-item measure has six factors/domains (nose, throat, eyes, chest/respiratory, gastrointestinal, and body/systemic), with a higher order factor representing symptom severity overall (comparative fit index = 0.92; root mean square error of approximation = 0.06). Cronbach α was high (total = 0.92; domain range = 0.71–0.87); test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, day 1–day 2) was 0.83 for total scores and 0.57 to 0.79 for domains. Day 1 FLU-PRO domain and total scores were moderately to highly correlated (≥0.30) with Patient Global Rating of Flu Severity (except nose and throat). Consistent with known-groups validity, scores differentiated severity groups on the basis of global rating (total: F = 57.2, P < 0.001; domains: F = 8.9–67.5, P < 0.001). Subjects reporting return to usual health showed significantly greater (P < 0.05) FLU-PRO score improvement by day 7 than did those who did not, suggesting score responsiveness. Conclusions: Results suggest that FLU-PRO scores are reliable, valid, and responsive to change in influenza-positive adults

Comparative safety, tolerance, and pharmacokinetics of amphotericin B lipid complex and amphotericin B desoxycholate in healthy male volunteers

Amphotericin B lipid complex (ABLC), a lipid complex formulation of amphotericin B, and amphotencin B desoxycholate (AB) were compared for safety, tolerance, and pharmacokinetics in two groups of eight healthy male volunteers. After a 1-mg test dose, study drug was infused at 0.1, 0.25, and 0.5 mg/kg; the 0.5-mg/kg dose was not given to subjects receiving AB ABLC caused few acute adverse effects except for mild somnolence (drowsiness) in six volunteers. In addition, three of eight ABLC recipients had asymptomatic, transient serum transaminase elevations that resolved spontaneously. The AB recipients experienced more acute side effects but only one had a mild shaking chill; three of eight also experienced sleepiness. No significant changes in vital signs, electrocardiograms, oximetry, pulmonary function, or clinical status were observed in either group. Due to its increased estimated volume of distribution and estimated clearance, ABLC yielded decreased amphotericin B levels and area under the serum concentration versus time curve relative to AB

Comparative Safety, Tolerance, and Pharmacokinetics of Amphotericin B Lipid Complex and Amphotericin B Desoxycholate in Healthy Male Volunteers

Amphotericin B lipid complex (ABLC), a lipid complex formulation of amphotericin B, and amphotericin B desoxycholate (AB) were compared for safety, tolerance, and pharmacokinetics in two groups of eight healthy male volunteers. After a l-mg test dose, study drug was infused at 0.1, 0.25, and 0.5 mg/kg; the 0.5-mg/kg dose was not given to subjects receiving AB. ABLC caused few acute adverse effects except for mild somnolence (drowsiness) in six volunteers. In addition, three of eight ABLC recipients had asymptomatic, transient serum transaminase eleva-tions that resolved spontaneously. The AB recipients experienced more acute side effects, but only one had a mild shaking chill; three of eight also experienced sleepiness. No significant changes in vital signs, electrocardiograms, oximetry, pulmonary function, or clinical status were observed in either group. Due to its increased estimated volume of distribution and estimated clearance, ABLC yielded decreased amphotericin B levels and area under the serum concentra-tion versus time curve relative to AB. Intravenous amphotericin B desoxycholate (AB) is the mainstay oftherapy for systemic mycoses, although its useful-ness has been limited by its toxicity. To reduce its untowar

Beating the odds: Successful establishment of a Phase II/III clinical research trial in resource-poor Liberia during the largest-ever Ebola outbreak

It has been argued that a country such as Liberia, not fully recovered from the devastation of decades of civil unrest, lacked the appropriate ethical and regulatory framework, basic human and health care services, and infrastructure to carry out clinical trials according to international standards of quality during a public health emergency. However, as Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea were being ravaged by the largest and most devastating Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak ever recorded, the topic of conducting clinical trials of experimental vaccine and treatment candidates in these resource-poor countries generated the keen interest and concern of scientists, researchers, physicians, bioethicists, philanthropists, and even politicians. Decisive action on behalf of the Liberian government, and a timely positive and supportive response from the United States (U.S.) government, led to the formation of PREVAIL (Partnership for Research on Ebola Vaccines in Liberia) – a clinical research partnership between the two governments. Within a span of 12 weeks, this partnership accomplished the unimaginable: the successful initiation of a Phase II/III vaccine clinical trial for EVD in Liberia. This paper will discuss the dynamics of the research collaboration, barriers encountered, breakthroughs realized, key elements of success, and lessons learned in the process

A randomized trial comparing concise and standard consent forms in the START trial

Background Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of research informed consent is a high priority. Some express concern about longer, more complex, written consent forms creating barriers to participant understanding. A recent meta-analysis concluded that randomized comparisons were needed. Methods We conducted a cluster-randomized non-inferiority comparison of a standard versus concise consent form within a multinational trial studying the timing of starting antiretroviral therapy in HIV+ adults (START). Interested sites were randomized to standard or concise consent forms for all individuals signing START consent. Participants completed a survey measuring comprehension of study information and satisfaction with the consent process. Site personnel reported usual site consent practices. The primary outcome was comprehension of the purpose of randomization (pre-specified 7.5% non-inferiority margin). Results 77 sites (2429 participants) were randomly allocated to use standard consent and 77 sites (2000 participants) concise consent, for an evaluable cohort of 4229. Site and participant characteristics were similar for the two groups. The concise consent was non-inferior to the standard consent on comprehension of randomization (80.2% versus 82%, site adjusted difference: 0.75% (95% CI -3.8%, +5.2%)); and the two groups did not differ significantly on total comprehension score, satisfaction, or voluntariness (p&gt;0.1). Certain independent factors, such as education, influenced comprehension and satisfaction but not differences between consent groups. Conclusions An easier to read, more concise consent form neither hindered nor improved comprehension of study information nor satisfaction with the consent process among a large number of participants. This supports continued efforts to make consent forms more efficient

Reported consent processes and demographics: a substudy of the INSIGHT Strategic Timing of AntiRetroviral Treatment (START) trial

ObjectivesEfforts are needed to improve informed consent of participants in research. The Strategic Timing of AntiRetroviral Therapy (START) study provides a unique opportunity to study the effect of length and complexity of informed consent documents on understanding and satisfaction among geographically diverse participants. MethodsInterested START sites were randomized to use either the standard consent form or the concise consent form for all of the site’s participants. ResultsA total of 4473 HIV-positive participants at 154 sites world-wide took part in the Informed Consent Substudy, with consent given in 11 primary languages. Most sites sent written information to potential participants in advance of clinic visits, usually including the consent form. At about half the sites, staff reported spending less than an hour per participant in the consent process. The vast majority of sites assessed participant understanding using informal nonspecific questions or clinical judgment. ConclusionsThese data reflect the interest of START research staff in evaluating the consent process and improving informed consent. The START Informed Consent Substudy is by far the largest study of informed consent intervention ever conducted. Its results have the potential to impact how consent forms are written around the world

A randomized trial comparing concise and standard consent forms in the START trial

Background:  Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of research informed consent is a high priority.  Some express concern about longer, more complex, written consent forms creating barriers to participant understanding.  A recent meta‐analysis concluded that randomized comparisons were needed.   Methods:  We conducted a cluster‐randomized non‐inferiority comparison of a standard versus concise consent form within a multinational trial studying the timing of starting antiretroviral therapy in HIV+ adults (START).  Interested sites were randomized to standard or concise consent forms for all individuals signing START consent.  Participants completed a survey measuring comprehension of study information and satisfaction with the consent process. Site personnel reported usual site consent practices. The primary outcome was comprehension of the purpose of randomization (pre‐specified 7.5% non‐inferiority margin). Results:  77 sites (2429 participants) were randomly allocated to use standard consent and 77 sites (2000 participants) concise consent, for an evaluable cohort of 4229.  Site and participant characteristics were similar for the two groups.  The concise consent was non‐inferior to the standard consent on comprehension of randomization (80.2% versus 82%, site adjusted difference:  0.75% (95% CI ‐3.8%, +5.2%));  and the two groups did not differ significantly on total comprehension score, satisfaction, or voluntariness (p&gt;0.1). Certain independent factors, such as education, influenced comprehension and satisfaction but not differences between consent groups. Conclusions:  An easier to read, more concise consent form neither hindered nor improved comprehension of study information nor satisfaction with the consent process among a large number of participants.  This supports continued efforts to make consent forms more efficient