Development and validation of a symptom-based activity index for adults with eosinophilic esophagitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Standardized instruments are needed to assess the activity of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and to provide end points for clinical trials and observational studies. We aimed to develop and validate a patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument and score, based on items that could account for variations in patient assessments of disease severity. We also evaluated relationships between patient assessment of disease severity and EoE-associated endoscopic, histologic, and laboratory findings. METHODS: We collected information from 186 patients with EoE in Switzerland and the United States (69.4% male; median age, 43 y) via surveys (n = 135), focus groups (n = 27), and semistructured interviews (n = 24). Items were generated for the instruments to assess biologic activity based on physician input. Linear regression was used to quantify the extent to which variations in patient-reported disease characteristics could account for variations in patient assessment of EoE severity. The PRO instrument was used prospectively in 153 adult patients with EoE (72.5% male; median age, 38 y), and validated in an independent group of 120 patients with EoE (60.8% male; median age, 40.5 y). RESULTS: Seven PRO factors that are used to assess characteristics of dysphagia, behavioral adaptations to living with dysphagia, and pain while swallowing accounted for 67% of the variation in patient assessment of disease severity. Based on statistical consideration and patient input, a 7-day recall period was selected. Highly active EoE, based on endoscopic and histologic findings, was associated with an increase in patient-assessed disease severity. In the validation study, the mean difference between patient assessment of EoE severity (range, 0-10) and PRO score (range, 0-8.52) was 0.15. CONCLUSIONS: We developed and validated an EoE scoring system based on 7 PRO items that assess symptoms over a 7-day recall period. Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT00939263

Effects of patient-reported outcome assessment order

Background: In clinical trials and clinical practice, patient-reported outcomes are almost always assessed using multiple patient-reported outcome measures at the same time. This raises concerns about whether patient responses are affected by the order in which the patient-reported outcome measures are administered. Methods: This questionnaire-based study of order effects included adult cancer patients from five cancer centers. Patients were randomly assigned to complete questionnaires via paper booklets, interactive voice response system, or tablet web survey. Linear Analogue Self-Assessment, Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System assessment tools were each used to measure general health, physical function, social function, emotional distress/anxiety, emotional distress/depression, fatigue, sleep, and pain. The order in which the three tools, and domains within tools, were presented to patients was randomized. Rates of missing data, scale scores, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were compared by the order in which they were assessed. Analyses included Cochran–Armitage trend tests and mixed models adjusted for performance score, age, sex, cancer type, and curative intent. Results: A total of 1830 patients provided baseline patient-reported outcome assessments. There were no significant trends in rates of missing values by whether a scale was assessed earlier or later. The largest order effect for scale scores was due to a large mean score at one assessment time point. The largest difference in Cronbach’s alpha between the versions for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scales was 0.106. Conclusion: The well-being of a cancer patient has many different aspects such as pain, fatigue, depression, and anxiety. These are assessed using a variety of surveys often collected at the same time. This study shows that the order in which the different aspects are collected from the patient is not important

Setting a baseline for global urban virome surveillance in sewage

The rapid development of megacities, and their growing connectedness across the world is becoming a distinct driver for emerging disease outbreaks. Early detection of unusual disease emergence and spread should therefore include such cities as part of risk-based surveillance. A catch-all metagenomic sequencing approach of urban sewage could potentially provide an unbiased insight into the dynamics of viral pathogens circulating in a community irrespective of access to care, a potential which already has been proven for the surveillance of poliovirus. Here, we present a detailed characterization of sewage viromes from a snapshot of 81 high density urban areas across the globe, including in-depth assessment of potential biases, as a proof of concept for catch-all viral pathogen surveillance. We show the ability to detect a wide range of viruses and geographical and seasonal differences for specific viral groups. Our findings offer a cross-sectional baseline for further research in viral surveillance from urban sewage samples and place previous studies in a global perspective

Reflecting on shared decision making: A reflection-quantification study

Background Reflecting ("stop-and-think") before rating may help patients consider the quality of shared decision making (SDM) and mitigate ceiling/halo effects that limit the performance of self-reported SDM measures. Methods We asked a diverse patient sample from the United States to reflect on their care before completing the 3-item CollaboRATE SDM measure. Study 1 focused on rephrasing CollaboRATE items to promote reflection before each item. Study 2 used 5 open-ended questions (about what went well and what could be improved upon, signs that the clinician understood the patient's situation, how the situation will be addressed, and why this treatment plan makes sense) to invite reflection before using the whole scale. A linear analogue scale assessed the extent to which the plan of care made sense to the patient. Results In Study 1, 107 participants completed surveys (84% response rate), 43 (40%) rated a clinical decision of which 27 (63%) after responding to reflection questions. Adding reflection lowered CollaboRATE scores ("less" SDM) and reduced the proportion of patients giving maximum (ceiling) scores (not statistically significant). In Study 2, 103 of 212 responders (49%) fully completed the version containing reflection questions. Reflection did not significantly change the distribution of CollaboRATE scores or of top scores. Participants indicated high scores on the sense of their care plan (mean 9.7 out of 10, SD 0.79). This rating was weakly correlated with total CollaboRATE scores (rho = .4, P = .0001). Conclusion Reflection-before-quantification interventions may not improve the performance of patient-reported measures of SDM with substantial ceiling/halo effects.Analysis and support of clinical decision makin

Making sense of diabetes medication decisions: a mixed methods cluster randomized trial using a conversation aid intervention

Purpose To determine the effectiveness of a shared decision-making (SDM) tool versus guideline-informed usual care in translating evidence into primary care, and to explore how use of the tool changed patient perspectives about diabetes medication decision making. Methods In this mixed methods multicenter cluster randomized trial, we included patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and their primary care clinicians. We compared usual care with or without a within-encounter SDM conversation aid. We assessed participant-reported decisions made and quality of SDM (knowledge, satisfaction, and decisional conflict), clinical outcomes, adherence, and observer-based patient involvement in decision-making (OPTION12-scale). We used semi-structured interviews with patients to understand their perspectives. Results We enrolled 350 patients and 99 clinicians from 20 practices and interviewed 26 patients. Use of the conversation aid increased post-encounter patient knowledge (correct answers, 52% vs. 45%, p = 0.02) and clinician involvement of patients (Mean between-arm difference in OPTION12, 7.3 (95% CI 3, 12); p = 0.003). There were no between-arm differences in treatment choice, patient or clinician satisfaction, encounter length, medication adherence, or glycemic control. Qualitative analyses highlighted differences in how clinicians involved patients in decision making, with intervention patients noting how clinicians guided them through conversations using factors important to them. Conclusions Using an SDM conversation aid improved patient knowledge and involvement in SDM without impacting treatment choice, encounter length, medication adherence or improved diabetes control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Future interventions may need to focus specifically on patients with signs of poor treatment fit